Defending the Truth

Both former Presidents died this week.

One death is being mourned, the other celebrated.
One former president is highly honored, the other despised.
One was a man who put his country ahead of his own political future, one let nothing get in the way of personal power and gain.


I've just been thinking about the irony of the situation. Two former Presidents who couldn't be more opposite!

Both were appointed by America.

Well it sure as heck wouldn't be Sweden doing anything. All they're good for is Volvos and Lutefisk. And the bad of one of those pretty much cancels out the good of the other.

I'd rather see a country stay back and make crappy cars, than go forward and make crappy dictators.

Volvos are good.
Most of Sweden's leaders have not been good.

If a couple adopt a child and he is a problem child, it's not the adoptive parents fault. He was already a problem child.

Bad example. It's the parent's fault if they knowingly let a problem child baby-sit their younglings and be a house-sitter for a week.

How do you figure it's a bad example. Saddam was elected, but I admit he was helped by the US as long as he was fighting Iran. Saddam is the one who chose to go against our interests. A problem child is a problem before he is adopted. Saddam was a problem child before we ever got a hold of him.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, Saddam should have been given democracy 25 years ago or at least a less powerful position. Probably wasn't possible.
Old saying comes to mind - 'there are no bad soldiers, only bad officers.
Saddam was just stupid, by comparison Gaddafi was clever, he had WMD and when the US challenged him he just opened the doors and the US could do nothing, Saddam would still have his power and his life today if he did the same as Gaddafi. Saddam lost everything Gaddafi lost nothing. Gaddafi was a much bigger threat to the US than Saddam would ever be.

Remember Irangate??

THink about it dude. The US decided to supply tons of arms to BOTH countries so they could proceed to annihilate each other..

Can you blame EITHER countries to go against US interests since it became PAINFULLY obvious that the US was against both countries interests?

Yet saddam needed the US to hold on to power, so he shut up and even made best pals with Bush Sr.. Iran ont he other hand was like "FUCK THAT, the US is a nation of lyin scum that will not hesitate to sell weapons to the enemy".. and can you really blame them for that?

Saddam BECAME a problem child for the US. Kind alike Osama yes? Perhaps if the US quits sponsoring nutcases to do their dirty work, they will stop creating enemies. You are all completely convinced of how crazy they are NOW. Was there no indication of that before?

YOu know the terrorist Osama? How many terrorist tactics did he employ against the Soviets FOR THE US?? But i forget.. that was against the evil communists ( who aren't really people) so that was all good.

Saddam may have been a problem child. But what morality can the US claim to have since they obviously did not give a damn whether Saddam was a violent tyrant.. At the time he was on their side so it was all good.

What superior morality can the US claim to have when it still supports a fundamentalist, tyrannical, hereditary dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. A dictatorship which terms women and non-muslims as second class citizens. A dictatorship that still publicly beheads criminals. A disgusting dictatorship that tramples human rights.

Oh i know.. they got oil and they kiss american ass. SO it doesn't matter what atrocities they commit. Just as long as they keep helping the US.

When Bush changed his stated purpose of the war ( the evasive WMDs) to an issue of MORALITY ( saving the Iraqi people from a dictator) he revealed himself as a hypocrite. Just like everybody else who can support the killing of one dictator while still supporting another.

Saddam was a problem child.. But the US made sure the problem child got enough power to rule a nation of 60 million with a deadly iron fist.

Well done !