The Suffering in Iraq, As Inflicted By Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush
The Issue of Compassion
I appreciate the thoughtful responses of the people who’ve contributed to this blog. Let me take as starting point here, the last comment to the last entry, by Anonymous, and his remarks regarding the suffering that perpetuators of suffering experience. I agree with his entry, that, in effect, compassion is never "wasted," whether it be for victims of suffering, or their victimizers. So, yes, I should, and I do, to a small degree feel sorry for Bush as a victimizer. But I feel so much more, for his victims. On about Jan 18, National Public Radio reported that 2 million Iraqis have left Iraq, 1.7 have relocated inside the country, and 100,000 a month continue to flee the country. Similarly, I feel compassion for other authority figures, as those from the business world, who abuse their power, as he points out. But mostly I feel compassion for their victims. Those thoughts gave rise to the rest of this blog entry, which are reflections on the extent of the dislocation and suffering in Iraq, as a result of George W. Bush’s invasion of that country.
Should we feel compassion for another victimizer, Saddam Hussein? It appeared that Saddam went to his death with resignation, stoicism and with courage too, as it appeared in the video. However, I think what we were seeing was not Saddam's stoicism in facing the hangman's noose, but his single minded focus on the pursuit of power and control, that extended right up through his last moment of life. On one hand, this focus blinded and distracted him from the suffering he caused so many fellow humans in his dictatorial power. But his power may also have been fed through the acts of torturing others. He didn't seem at all concerned that in the Afterlife, (an article of faith for him, as a devout Muslim), he would be dealing with the karma created and perpetuated by the suffering of so many people -- suffering which he caused.
Bush, Cheney and Saddam Hussein are zealots who draw strength from each other's fears, which blind them to their own crimes of causing suffering to others -- Saddam through his tyranny, Bush and Cheney through the ill-conceived invasion of Iran and the post war fiasco of an aftermath.
Comparing The Numbers of People Killed Through the Actions of Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush and Dick (“Tricky Dick”)Cheney.
On Casualties in Iraq
The Bush-Cheney Scorecard
George W. Bush justified his pre-emptive invasion of Iraq on the grounds of the existence of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein, weapons which were never found. The war and its abysmal aftermath are his responsibility as the US Commander in Chief.
655,000 Iraqis have been killed (2 1/2% of the population) as a consequence of this war and the occupation, according to Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, from an article in the Guardian, pub on 10-11-2006 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1892888,00.html .
The Saddam Hussein's Scorecard
How many people did Saddam kill, or was responsible for having killed? From the Iraq-Iran War of 1980-88, which he started, the figures are 500,000 Iraqis and 300,000 Iranians, plus several thousand persons from Saddam's 1990 occupation of Kuwait, which caused the US invasion in the first Gulf. (Figures taken from the Iraq Foundation, an expatriate organization, 2003. Another 200,000 persons are presumed to have been killed by Saddam through internal terrorism during his time as dictator of Iraq. War. http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html .
So, Saddam is responsible for the death of perhaps 1,000,000 people, compared to Bush and Cheney for 655,000 + people. Saddam wins our contest. These figures really boggle the mind. How do these rulers live with themselves? They demonize their fellow humans as "the enemy" and totally blot out the suffering to others which they cause.
Pre-State of Union Iraq speech of George W. Bush
I appreciate the thoughtful responses of the people who’ve contributed to this blog. Let me take as starting point here, the last comment to the last entry, by Anonymous, and his remarks regarding the suffering that perpetuators of suffering experience. I agree with his entry, that, in effect, compassion is never "wasted," whether it be for victims of suffering, or their victimizers. So, yes, I should, and I do, to a small degree feel sorry for Bush as a victimizer. But I feel so much more, for his victims. On about Jan 18, National Public Radio reported that 2 million Iraqis have left Iraq, 1.7 have relocated inside the country, and 100,000 a month continue to flee the country. Similarly, I feel compassion for other authority figures, as those from the business world, who abuse their power, as he points out. But mostly I feel compassion for their victims. Those thoughts gave rise to the rest of this blog entry, which are reflections on the extent of the dislocation and suffering in Iraq, as a result of George W. Bush’s invasion of that country.
Should we feel compassion for another victimizer, Saddam Hussein? It appeared that Saddam went to his death with resignation, stoicism and with courage too, as it appeared in the video. However, I think what we were seeing was not Saddam's stoicism in facing the hangman's noose, but his single minded focus on the pursuit of power and control, that extended right up through his last moment of life. On one hand, this focus blinded and distracted him from the suffering he caused so many fellow humans in his dictatorial power. But his power may also have been fed through the acts of torturing others. He didn't seem at all concerned that in the Afterlife, (an article of faith for him, as a devout Muslim), he would be dealing with the karma created and perpetuated by the suffering of so many people -- suffering which he caused.
Bush, Cheney and Saddam Hussein are zealots who draw strength from each other's fears, which blind them to their own crimes of causing suffering to others -- Saddam through his tyranny, Bush and Cheney through the ill-conceived invasion of Iran and the post war fiasco of an aftermath.
Comparing The Numbers of People Killed Through the Actions of Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush and Dick (“Tricky Dick”)Cheney.
On Casualties in Iraq
The Bush-Cheney Scorecard
George W. Bush justified his pre-emptive invasion of Iraq on the grounds of the existence of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein, weapons which were never found. The war and its abysmal aftermath are his responsibility as the US Commander in Chief.
655,000 Iraqis have been killed (2 1/2% of the population) as a consequence of this war and the occupation, according to Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, from an article in the Guardian, pub on 10-11-2006 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1892888,00.html .
The Saddam Hussein's Scorecard
How many people did Saddam kill, or was responsible for having killed? From the Iraq-Iran War of 1980-88, which he started, the figures are 500,000 Iraqis and 300,000 Iranians, plus several thousand persons from Saddam's 1990 occupation of Kuwait, which caused the US invasion in the first Gulf. (Figures taken from the Iraq Foundation, an expatriate organization, 2003. Another 200,000 persons are presumed to have been killed by Saddam through internal terrorism during his time as dictator of Iraq. War. http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html .
So, Saddam is responsible for the death of perhaps 1,000,000 people, compared to Bush and Cheney for 655,000 + people. Saddam wins our contest. These figures really boggle the mind. How do these rulers live with themselves? They demonize their fellow humans as "the enemy" and totally blot out the suffering to others which they cause.
Pre-State of Union Iraq speech of George W. Bush
Bush’s Continued Bellicosity
During his recent Iraq speech to the nation, Bush's face looked tight and drawn. Bush is still angry, combative, and selectively seeing what he wants to see and disregarding the rest (So what else is new?) I thought his speech was very scary, and designed to be very threatening to Iran. Indeed, the very next day, US troops arrested Iranian officials from their delegation in the Kurdish part of Iraq. This was immediately followed by the protests of the Kurdish regional government and the provisional Iraqi government, that the US was violating their territorial integrity. He ordered additional naval forces to be moved to that region. Are these purely defensive, as he claimed? I think not. Bush and Ahmadinejad are belligerent zealots who proclaim what each wants to hear, to justify their hatred and bellicosity. Their supporters feed off of this energy. Yet, according to polls in both Iran and the US, most people do not seek conflict nor to increase the tensions between the two countries.
Bush has continued his aggressive stance toward "Communist" China's shooting down of its own space satellite with a missile. I would think that if there is a bully who bullies people with a big club, and if another bully appears, that the former would become a little more cautious, and pull back a bit. But not Bush. I think he responded by mentioning Starwars, the US government's laser weapon system, or perhaps he mentioned the US own' anti-missile program. So, Bush ramped up his belligerent talk. And he still seems determined to continue to do things "my way" with reference to Iran, regardless of the consequences. Above all, let us hope that Ahmadinejad and Bush do not succeed in provoking each other into increasingly confrontational stances, with dire consequences for the whole world.
During his recent Iraq speech to the nation, Bush's face looked tight and drawn. Bush is still angry, combative, and selectively seeing what he wants to see and disregarding the rest (So what else is new?) I thought his speech was very scary, and designed to be very threatening to Iran. Indeed, the very next day, US troops arrested Iranian officials from their delegation in the Kurdish part of Iraq. This was immediately followed by the protests of the Kurdish regional government and the provisional Iraqi government, that the US was violating their territorial integrity. He ordered additional naval forces to be moved to that region. Are these purely defensive, as he claimed? I think not. Bush and Ahmadinejad are belligerent zealots who proclaim what each wants to hear, to justify their hatred and bellicosity. Their supporters feed off of this energy. Yet, according to polls in both Iran and the US, most people do not seek conflict nor to increase the tensions between the two countries.
Bush has continued his aggressive stance toward "Communist" China's shooting down of its own space satellite with a missile. I would think that if there is a bully who bullies people with a big club, and if another bully appears, that the former would become a little more cautious, and pull back a bit. But not Bush. I think he responded by mentioning Starwars, the US government's laser weapon system, or perhaps he mentioned the US own' anti-missile program. So, Bush ramped up his belligerent talk. And he still seems determined to continue to do things "my way" with reference to Iran, regardless of the consequences. Above all, let us hope that Ahmadinejad and Bush do not succeed in provoking each other into increasingly confrontational stances, with dire consequences for the whole world.
posted by poetpaul @ 7:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home