Lying and murdering tyrants and apologists like Ian MacDougall

...MacD's stance is (presumably) one of 'lesser of two evils,' and it helps his 'argument' that the (ignorant, towel-headed Muslim, Islamofascist even) Iraqis are (thought? Assumed?) largely to be killing each other (as opposed to the US killing them, one supposes), now that the restraining influence of Saddam has been removed. This latter - Iraqis killing each other - MacD might think (as we really have no evidence, let alone good evidence, as to who actually is killing whom) is *merely* an unfortunate side-effect of the in-his-mind justified US (B, B & H: the lying Bush/Cheney duopoly, plus lying poodle Blair, lying dag Howard) intervention, in-my-mind *unjustifiable* illegal invasion now turned brutal occupation.

But going back to some possible 'lesser evil,' his 'argument' *for* invasion was to stop Saddam killing any more Iraqi/Marsh Arab/Kurdish et al. citizens.

*BUT* there is no evidence, let alone good evidence, as to how many might'a actually been killed by "Saddam and his two psychopathic sons."

As far as I recall, no mass-graves were ever found, except for those relating back to the Iran/Iraq war, or to the the '91 imbroglio (also possibly prompted by the US; there were stories put about, of Kuwait diagonal-drilling down and across into Iraq to steal Iraq's oil, and the US assured Saddam that they, the US, had no objection to Iraq invading Kuwait. But just about as soon as that invasion took place, the US then U-turned and moved against Saddam. Hmmm?)

(Also another not-so-BTW, two wrongs never make a right; attacking Saddam/Iraq was never going to be the solution to Saddam's badness.)

Facit: while Saddam may well have been an absolutely 'orrible murdering bastard (even if he was the US' bastard), he just wasn't into mass-slaughter much if at all after '91, say (after the US inspired rebellions - subsequently abandoned by that same US - were brutally put down.)

And *that's* the basic error at the root of MacD's stance.

Then, even if there was an humanitarian case (as he claims), it ignores the oil/Israeli components, plus the revenge[1] components, and the general imperial thrust present since at least 1893[2] (and further back, even as far back as the first successful English colony [which] had been planted in 1607 with the 'Pilgrim Fathers' following in the "Mayflower" in 1620 & the associated genocide of the 'native' peoples).

MacD claims a tenuous humanitarian rationalisation, but it was not merely tenuous, it was Oh, so cynically hyped - and he, MacD, fell for the hype - lock, stock and barrel - and all those oil barrels, to boot ($US30trio?) We can then speak of MacD's misplaced faith (aka belief independent of the facts) in the pushed paradigm, the filthily lying politicians, a venal MSM, scheming & thieving m/i-plexes, finally and perhaps the worst, the lying, land and water stealing via murdering i/j/z-plex.

-=*=-

All of which were there, and are far, far, almost infinitely worse - than Saddam ever was. Saddam was a thug, but it's the US, the supposed 'hero' who is acting like the 4th Reich, as good as *is* the 4th Reich. Nobody has ever satisfactorily answered my 'house-siege' analogy; if the cops have to storm a domestic siege/hostage situation, they afterwards do not move in, loot the house and keep all proceeds for themselves - exactly what the US intends, with its massive 'embassy' and humungous military bases - and imposed privatisation/rip-offs, puppet-regime and oil-law.

It is the US which is the lying and murdering tyrant, and it's apologists like Ian MacDougall who give that tyrant support.

-=*=-

Finally, of course there's always the problem, when choosing between the 'lesser of two evils;' one must, perforce, end up with an evil. More work required?

-=*end*=-

PS One may be able to get the sailor out'a the port (it *was* about oil, even if *not only* about oil), but one can't get the port out'a the sailor: it wouldn't've happened *without* the oil. The wannabe hegemon, pushed by the illegitimate sprog, assisted by the poodle and dag, deliberately set out to brutally mass-murder for, not exclusively perhaps, but unavoidably *oil*.

Further: y'can't say that it was based on flawed intel or that it was bungled: both'a those may well've played a part (and the intel was fixed, i.e. fudged, see Downing St. memos, dodgy dossier, yellow-cake, alu-tubes... a whole lot'a filthy lies), but when someone sets out on a criminal enterprise (as B, B & H plus hangers-on most definitely did, and assisted by their apologists then as now), criminal is as criminal does; the invasion was illegal, just as the occupation is brutal, each more murdering than the other. And apologists make themselves accessories to those crimes, including the supreme crime à la Nuremberg.

Finally: Shock'n whore® was never gunna be a lesser evil. A rather fatal error, Mr. MacDougall; we the anti-wars foresaw most if not all the problems - which properly belong to you & your ilk, so YOU can get used to the guilt & opprobrium. Hmmm?

Ref(s):

[1] Revenge? - Yeah. More 'normally' associated with Iran, Iraq incurred US revenge - for switching oil payments to EURO. Can't be seen to undermine the otherwise practically worthless US fiat currency, threaten the US deficit-swindle 'free ride,' eh?

[2] Basic Statistics for United States Imperialism.

This is, IMHO, an exceedingly important document. I do not know its 'true' origin, but I found it 1st (with a big 'Haw!') here:
apk2000.dk/netavisen/artikler/global_debat/2002-1126_us_imp_basic_stats.htm

There is another copy here:
whatreallyhappened.com/usinterventionism.html