Why I did not like Saddam but respect Bush

[Waziri]

You see, both Saddam and Bush have explicitly stated their reasons for standing firmly where they stood (in case of Saddam) and stand (in case of Bush) with regard to WAR IN IRAQ. Saddam said he was doing it for Islam, Arab nationalism and upon all, the protection of Iraqi people. Bush on his part says he is doing it because Saddam acquired weapons of mass destruction; thereby he must be dealt with, since he was becoming a threat to international peace.

But in reality - as is true with every parcel of human action - there are implicit reasons why they were both doing the war. And it was based on these implicit reasons I judged them. Here are the reasons:

     FOR BUSH

1.      Bush did not go to war because Saddam was believed to have possessed weapons of mass destruction. No. But because he wanted to take control of the Iraqi oil for the benefit of his some 250 million countrymen. His activities in Iraqi after the war are living proofs to that.


2.      Bush did not go to war because Saddam was becoming a threat to international peace. No. But because Saddam was a threat to the realisation of the dream of greater Israel, Zionism a philosophy, which Bush, is "unaskedly" loyal to. His activities including the project that seeks to draw oil pipelines from Iraq into the heart of Jerusalem are living proofs.

FOR SADDAM

1.      Saddam did not stand firmly on his stand refusing to relinquish his position as Head of State because of his commitment to the ideology of Islam. He stood there firmly because he wanted to perpetuate himself in power for his personal aggrandizement using Islam for a cover. This considering the fact that history has recorded that his position and activities as leader have never subordinated Islamic Ideals. In fact he killed many outstanding Islamic scholars of his country like Sheik Baqir.

2.      Saddam did not stand firmly on his stand refusing to relinquish his position as Head of State because of his commitment to the Arab nationalism. He stood there firmly because he wanted to perpetuate himself in power for his personal aggrandizement using Arab nationalism for a cover. For he knew before hand that once he allowed Americans to set there feet on his country they will not leave middle east until they subdued all Arab nations. As such he would have left disallowing them or at least delayed their coming close, for the sake of his other Arab nations.

3.      Saddam did not stand firmly on his stand refusing to relinquish his position as Head of States because of his commitment to the sovereignty of Iraqi nation. He stood there firmly because he wanted to perpetuate himself in power for his personal aggrandizement using the protection of the sovereignty of his country as a cover. For if not he would have done other wise. Fled and avoided the encroachments over the sovereignty of his country in the name of war and the spilling of blood of the innocent people. But Saddam did not flee until after the breaking-up of the sovereignty of his country and spilling of blood of the innocent Iraqi people. This man was not even patriotic enough to stay in the country and die with his people.


I don't know... I might be wrong. I often am.  but it was indeed based on the aforementioned reasons I concluded that Bush is a better human being than Saddam. Though I am not in support of the I-know-all and can-do-all attitude of  America as a nation but still Bush to me has nobler motive in attacking Iraq than the defence of Saddam. After all the philosophy that governs the world today -and is accepted anywhere across the globe- is that thing known as: NATIONALISM. Under this philosophy it is allowed that one should exploit the people of other nationalities by all means -even if it involves killing them- for the benefits of his own nation.

Going by this, Bush scores distinction in commitment to national values where Saddam failed; Distinction for Bush in identifying with religious ideals in as much as freemasonry is concerned where Saddam failed in identifying with Islamic ideals; Distinction for Bush in the pursuit for greater Israel (Zionism) where Saddam failed in the dream for greater Arabia.

Where Bush is completely wrong is where the philosophy is HUMANISM which Saddam of course is equally wrong. And that is where the world order should focus. An order ordained by God and supported by Waziri and the bulk of Kanoonliners.... Yes, If I can speak for Kanoonliners.  

[Anonymous]

Ayya malam Waziri. Kada kayi kuka. It must have took you too much time to write this and unfortunately you have only one reply todate and its this one. Maybe next time or perhaps a more interesting topic ok. Allaaah Sarki.

[ummita]

2 me Saddam & Bush r both leaders but they be blind leaders of the blind. An if the blind leads the blind, both shall fall into a ditch.

Bush might b right, when he said he was fighting against what Saddam has, weaposn of mass desruction, why was he doing so? because he doesnt want war in the nearest future, cummon, I havent heard anyone who wasnt agaisnt war, even Hitler and Mussolini were agaisnt war. So in a sense, Saddam might be right as well, he has weapon of mass desrtucion to protect his people agaisnt those who disregard or r agaisnt Islamicity

If they say war, to me in war which ever side calls theirselves winners, b it iraqis b it Americans, which eva side call theirselves victors, I do not reagd them as that, rather in my own assumptions there is no winner but all are loosers. ::)

From Mahatma Ghandi cumz my very favourite verse:
What differences doe it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destrcution is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?

And from myself comes the best answer: NONE AT ALL

Waz u hav 2 understand b/w 2 leaders none can b compared.......They r far off worse @ birds of d same feathers.

Wat suprises me most is that theres no reason b bring religion in to d whole war thing. I think we ought 2 hav as regards for religion as we can, so as to keep it out of as many things as possible.

In the main time, war is not our problem, comparing and contrasting who we like is not the issue as stake, we r aiming and wanting to move towards a peaceful settlement.

Saddam & Bush r not our concerns rather than those people getting killed in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Palestine, Cheechan........these people that are persecuted in their land, those people dying for Islam........now that is what we do not like and why we dont like it  

[Waziri]

Wat suprises me most is that theres no reason b bring religion in to d whole war thing. I think we ought 2 hav as regards for religion as we can, so as to keep it out of as many things as possible.

In the main time, war is not our problem, comparing and contrasting who we like is not the issue as stake, we r aiming and wanting to move towards a peaceful settlement.

Saddam & Bush r not our concerns rather than those people getting killed in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Palestine, Cheechan........these people that are persecuted in their land, those people dying for Islam........now that is what we do not like and why we dont like it ?

That is true ummita, partly true if not wholly true, but we only thought of comparing here bc many are comparing( going by what we read daily on newspapers and hear from BBC and other media). And we also feel a responsibility to comment on religion bc Saddam brought religion into it( at least if you have been fll him since after gulf war).

Ummita you can see where we all rhyme. You identified our brothers in Kosovo, etc as our major area of concern which is clear in our submission where we advocated for Humanism as a philosophy that we think should guide all human disposition.

[Waziri]

Ayya malam Waziri. Kada kayi kuka. It must have took you too much time to write this and unfortunately you have only one reply todate and its this one. Maybe next time or perhaps a more interesting topic ok. Allaaah Sarki.

Kai!! Kanoonline kenan. A bunch of characters indeed.