Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Malcom Lagauche: Iraq, THE MYTH

Expand Messages
  • World View
    A picture tells a thousand words THE MYTH Malcom Lagauche October 9, 2005 www.malcomlagauche.com/id1.html The war was wrong, but the world is better off
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 1, 2005
      A picture tells a thousand words

      THE MYTH
      Malcom Lagauche
      October 9, 2005

      "The war was wrong, but the world is better off without Saddam
      Hussein," heralded Democrat-after-Democrat in attempting to take the
      wind out of George Bush's sails. After all, Bush was saying that there
      still may be a stash of weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq.

      Now, after conclusive evidence has been shown by Bush's own appointees
      that there was not one gram of chemical or biological agents left in
      Iraq, the Republicans are saying, "There were no weapons of mass
      destruction, but the world is better off without Saddam Hussein." The
      Republicans have stolen the Democrats' line of reasoning, almost down
      to the last word.

      Where do the Democrats go from here? They've already staked out their
      war philosophy and it has been co-opted by the Republicans. In other
      words, the Democrats shot themselves in their collective feet.

      Let's look at the statement about the world being better off without
      Saddam Hussein. It seems that few people have challenged that
      statement and it has been taken for fact. However, the facts do not
      justify the statement.

      The world is definitely not better off with Saddam in jail for various
      reasons. His incarceration was the result of an illegal pre-emptive
      action that could set the pace for other countries that have gripes
      with certain factions. Russia will have an open hand in Chechnya. The
      Chinese may look at Tibet in another light after the U.S. invasion.
      And other Asian countries may be licking their chops and looking to
      settle long-running feuds. The entire concept of a United Nations that
      is supposed to stop war has changed and the rule of the jungle is
      coming to the forefront.

      Now, let's look at numbers. Yesterday, six U.S. military people were
      killed in roadside bombings. Dozens, if not hundreds of Iraqis were
      killed during U.S. raids. Hundreds of Iraqis left their homes because
      of imminent danger. And this is just one day's actions; actions that
      continue day in and day out.

      Since the March 2003 invasion, about 150,000 Iraqis have died. Almost
      2,000 Americans are now in graves who would not be if there was no
      invasion. Iraq has little electricity and an unemployment rate of
      almost 70%. The U.S. has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this
      fiasco and there is no end in sight.

      Speaking of electricity in Iraq, I recently read an appropriate quote
      from a former prisoner who was tortured at Abu Grhaib by U.S.
      soldiers. He stated, "I always knew the Americans would bring
      electricity back to Baghdad. I just never thought they'd be shooting
      it up my ass."

      Terrorist attacks are now the norm in the world. Every day we read of
      someplace that is affected: India, Pakistan, Egypt, Palestine, Iraq,
      Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the list goes on. They don't even gain
      headlines any more. These are attacks that would not have occurred had
      the world scene not changed with the illegal invasion of Iraq.

      Foreign Arab and Islamic fighters are coming to Iraq. This is their
      World Cup. Again, with no invasion, Iraq would have been the last
      place they would have visited.

      It will take Iraq decades to recover from two U.S.-led wars and a
      devastating embargo. Millions of Iraqi dead and tens of thousands of
      deaths of other nationalities will be on the final scorecard. And, by
      then, the cost will be in the trillions, not billions, of dollars.

      With all this obvious information, the best the Democrats can come up
      with is, "The world is better with Saddam Hussein behind bars." Those
      are the words of an imbecile. That's why George Bush is now using them.

      If one looks at this matter objectively and states the truth, the
      whole future could take on a more sensible course. Americans hate
      Saddam Hussein. Europeans are usually neutral and many in the Arab
      world hold him in high esteem. A British biographer once stated, after
      seeing an anti-Saddam Hussein piece on the A&E Network, "The Arab
      world does not see him in the same light as what you have portrayed.
      They look at him as the leader who brought literacy and women's rights
      to the Arab world." There are varying opinions on Saddam Hussein and
      his presidency of Iraq not just those of the brain-dead and lying U.S.

      But, regardless of whether you hate him, admire him, or have no
      opinion, the world is far worse off because of the activities that led
      to his imprisonment. Even some former anti-Saddam Hussein people are
      coming to that conclusion. They are looking at reality.

      Scott Ritter, the former head U.N. inspector in Iraq is attacking the
      U.S. policy toward Iraq. Last year, he wrote an article called "If You
      Had Seen What I Have Seen," in which he maintains that the U.S. and
      Britain never would have the embargo lifted despite Iraq's cooperation
      and performing their duties that the U.N. asked of them. The U.S. and
      British signatures meant nothing. They would have kept the embargo in
      place until Saddam was gone, despite the murdering of two million
      Iraqis. They did not care if the figure went to three or four million.

      In his article, Ritter stated, "Saddam is gone, and the world is far
      worse for it … because the threat to international peace and security
      resulting from the decisions made by Bush and Blair to invade Iraq in
      violation of international law makes any threat emanating from an Iraq
      ruled by Saddam pale in comparison."

      I have maintained that if Iraq were to become a "democracy" along U.S.
      lines, why not allow the Baath Party to participate? It is still the
      largest party in the country. And, there is a good chance Saddam would
      regain the presidency. Such a gamble on the part of the U.S. is

      Scott Ritter and I are not the only people uttering the fallacy of the
      "with Saddam in jail, the world is better off" line. A recent report
      put together by more than 650 foreign policy experts from countries
      all over the world (Security Scholars for a Sensible Foreign Policy),
      condemned virtually every aspect of the Iraqi invasion, from
      non-existent diplomacy, to lying, to military blunders. Members of the
      group included even former Pentagon and U.S. Department of State Staff.

      The group concluded, "Even on moral grounds, the case for war was
      dubious. The war itself has killed over a thousand Americans and
      unknown thousands of Iraqis. And if the threat of civil war becomes
      reality, ordinary Iraqis could be even worse off then they were under
      Saddam Hussein."

      I know that Saddam Hussein will win no popularity contests in the U.S.
      However, one must separate fact from fiction and realize the
      inaccuracy of the "better off without Saddam" thought process. Those
      who are anti-war will never see their aspirations come to fruition
      with this thinking. Look at the situation carefully and see the myth.
      Those who have, and possess integrity, have publicly stated that the
      invasion was wrong and that the Iraqi pieces may never be put back
      together again. Those who maintain the myth are only giving a green
      light to the imperialistic aspirations of the current
      neo-conservative-led Republican Party. The Democrats have fallen into
      the Republican trap.

      Today, despite all that has happened, many armchair leftists still use
      the "we're better off without Saddam" philosophy. All I can say about
      this is that those who write such words have absolutely no integrity
      or ability to use logic. They are using George Bush's own words to
      justify their own milquetoast writings, yet they are just as much to
      blame for Iraq's current plight as the neocons in the Bush administration.

      To me, there is nothing more disgusting than people who supposedly
      opposed the invasion of Iraq allowing the myth to become a part of
      their writing. At least the necons and warmongers were consistent in
      their philosophy.

      Last night, I watched an interview with the author Kurt Vonnegut. The
      interviewer was shocked when Vonnegut stated that, despite supposed
      party differences of Democrats and Republicans, there is no loser
      between them in elections. He said the losers are the people. And,
      whoever wins an election (Democrat or Republican), is beholden to the
      same interests that destroy the people of the country. He laughed when
      he said, "Give me a break. There are no losers in elections; just the

      The myth proves his point. Pro-war people have been emboldened by
      those of the so-called "left" who praise the kidnapping of Saddam
      Hussein while opposing the war and the neocons. They usually criticize
      the lesser intellectually-minded for falling into a trap made by the
      government, while they have fallen deeply into the same trap and will
      never be able to loosen the grip.



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.