While disucussing my outrage at the Bush administration's actions against Iraq, I've been confronted with the question "are we just supposed to sit by and let Saddam kill his own people?" and others along the line that the US had to step in because it was morally or politically obligated.

My challenge to this idea is this; These assertions rely on the idea that a US occupation will be more just for Iraqis. Let's go so far as to say "completely just" considering how Bush has put forth his moral foot on TV (I have personal feelings on where that foot will end up). That the US will do 'right'. Bush kept telling his constituents and the Iraqis that he was bringing peace, democracy and freedom to Iraq. Well, here's my brief report card on the freedom that the US is doling out as opposed to the former regime.

Saddam killed his own people to instill fear and loyalty:
The US military occupying Iraq is about to be given the authority to shoot looters on sight. No questions asked. On sight. In the US you have the right to a trial. In Iraq, you are judged and executed by a soldier 'on sight'.
According to a US official privvy to the briefing on this, "They are going to start shooting a few looters so that the word gets around".
Previously they only shot, on sight, unruly protesters or crowds of excited civilians (Mosul, April death toll varies from 10 to 30+. 100s were injured).

Irqis were not free to protest/assemble and Saddam ruled as a dictator:
US forces apparently do not feel free speech is a freedom the Iraqis ought to have. According to the Wall Street Journal. "The U.S. Army issued orders for troops to seize this city's only television station, leading an officer here to raise questions about the Army's dedication to free speech in postwar Iraq..." An officer was relieved of duty (this was Mosul, again, ironically) for refusing to seize a television station because the military didn't like what they were broadcasting (al-Jazeera). If you don't know what's wrong with this, hit the library and read up on a bit of the history of dictators. You might look up 'freedom' and 'democracy' as well, while you're there. Censorship is the dictator's tourniquet to stem the flow of dissent.

Iraq's cruel regime mistreated prisoners of war:
Jessica Lynch was a symbol of US pluck and do-goodness. She gave the US a touchstone for indignation about the treatment of POWs. ...and most of it was probably media hooey... According to some unsettled British sources (and upcoming examinations on UK TV), the Pentagon was in charge of the final version of this story and played it like they wanted it played. The truth of the rescue was secondary to how it looked on the news. The Geneva Convention was mentioned over and over and how Iraq was contravening its rules. Besides, the US would never behave this way. Right? Wrong... right now there are hundreds upon hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo who are not even being given the benefit of Geneva Convention observance simply because the US military said so. No one can question it. The US has even hinted they may keep some permanently. The US is still holding many many prisoners/unlawful combatant/detainees/whatever-they-call-them whose home countries are desperate and begging to have them returned. The US has crafted their own definition of when the Geneva Convention applies. Apparently it applies to any US citizen held by someone else, but only to others when the US sees fit. (PS - Saying some other country is worse doesn't change anything. That's a red herring.)

Saddam controlled the state-owned oil industry with no public input:
VP Cheney's continued compensation connections to Haliburton forced a shuffle in who would oversee the Iraqi oil industry reconstruction. So former Shell and Fluor executive Philip Carroll was put in charge. Err, but... Carroll receives retirment payments (tied to performance) and owns stock in Fluor, one of the top bidders for the contract. He also says he'll advise Oraq to keep the oil industry state-owned (apparently privatization is only good for nice capitalists in America). He counters any questions about suitability and says he'll 'keep it honest' despite his obvious conflicts of interest.

In summation: I do believe the Iraqi people [who survive] will, in the end, be better off in most ways [but not all that they've been promised -- including continued life and freedom from fear], there's no doubt of that. But I also believe the hypocrisy and guile of the Bush administration will eventually be exposed. Hopefully sooner rather than later in a sad entry in the history books. In the meantime we're sure to see more of the true nature of the Bush hawks and their plans play out on in the media, for better or worse...

[HOMER] Prove me wrong, Silent Bob. [/HOMER]