Someone needs to say it. - Democratic Underground

Julien Sorel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Sep-13-04 08:39 AM
Original message

Someone needs to say it.

Edited on Mon Sep-13-04 09:06 AM by BillyBunter

Looking at the picture of the Red Crescent ambulance, bombed today by American jets in Fallujah as it carried wounded civilians to the hospital, and it is obvious that "Iraqi Freedom" is a farce. Look at the numbers of them dying every day. How many tens of thousands of Iraqis have died since we invaded? How many tens of thousands more will die? What the White House calls an "insurgency" is a low-level civil war, one that is in danger at any moment of becoming much more intense.

The United States has now lost over 1,000 soldiers, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, alienated almost every ally, quintupled the recruitment of Al-qaeda -- and there's no end to the occupation in sight.

North Korea is on the brink of testing nuclear weapons, and we can do nothing because our military is bogged down in Iraq. Iran is possibly in the process of developing nuclear weapons, but the problems the U.S. has encountered in its "cakewalk" invasion of Iraq has taken the threat of military action off the table with Iran -- a nation four times the size of Iraq, with three times the population can see it has little to fear from a U.S. that has its hands full elsewhere.

What have we gotten out of the invasion? No WMDs. Iraq was not connected to terrorism. Iraq presented no threat to the United States.

George Bush is going around the country saying, "If it was up to John Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in power," as if that were a terrible insult to Kerry. I do not see any benefits to the Iraqi people, and certainly not to the United States, from removing Saddam from power, besides the entertainment value some people got from watching the war unfold in their living rooms. Why is this insulting to Kerry?

Who cares about Saddam? What American would have cared about Saddam, had George Bush not put a spotlight on him, and intoned over and over again that he was tied to Al-qaeda, that he was developing nuclear weapons, that he had enough chemical weapons to wipe everyone out, and on and on and on until the people were scared to the point where they threw up their hands and said, "Go ahead George, have your invasion."

Was removing Saddam worth it to the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis? Was it worth it to those who are still there, and who live in constant fear of a full-scale civil war breaking out, who are afraid of car bombs and suicide bombs and American bombs and "improvised explosive devices" -- home made bombs?

Was removing Saddam worth it to the 1000 Americans who gave their lives there, to the untold more who will in the future? Was it worth it to their families and loved ones? Was removing Saddam worth hundreds of billions of dollars, money that could have gone to medical research and schools and roads, or to paying down debt or to, yes, tax cuts?

John Kerry can't say this. No politician can, without immediately being laughed at and attacked as "soft on terror," and ridiculed as a weakling. But I can. So can you.

George Bush screwed up in Iraq. Badly. If letting Saddam's sad little dictatorship survive would have kept the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis alive, then Saddam should have stayed. If letting Saddam's weapons of mass destructionless dictatorship survive meant 1000 American kids would still be alive, then Saddam should have stayed. If letting Saddam's dictatorship, which had nothing to do with terrorism in the U.S., would mean the national debt would not be spiraling out of control, then Saddam should have stayed.

John Kerry might not be able to say that. But someone has to. Before too much longer, we're all going to be saying it; the only questions are, how much longer, how much more money will we spend, how many more people will have to die.