I was not against removing Saddam Hussien from power. I am not against trying him in international court on crimes against humanity. I am not against having him tried in Iraq by the people of Iraq in the same manner post Apartheid South Africa tried their criminals.
But if Bush is going to make a big production of doing so, and he will for it's one of the only cards he has to play in his re-election campaign, then we should be asking a few questions. Like why now? Why suddenly did we have to go and get him? Why was it okay for Bush Sr. to leave him in Bagdad? He had committed all of these crimes then. He was also a war criminal when America gave him weapons and money to fight Iran.
And if we were to be honest with ourselves why are we so worried about dead Iraqis? Obviously we don't give a shit about the brutal slaughter in various African countries due to tribal warfare. Why weren't American troops in the Ivory Coast? Or in the Sudan where the death toll reached 2 million in that civil war, more than in any conflict since the Second World War?
If we're so concerned with how many people Saddam killed, why aren't we troubled by how many we could be saving in Africa by spending even a portion of America's budget for occupying Iraq on trying to stem the spread of AIDS and end famine.
Because Africans don't have oil. If they did they wouldn't have the problems they're having (they'd have a whole new set of them). Because we couldn't really give a shit, and we're afraid that if they were ever allowed to develop to the point we say we want them to develop then they'd start to expect us to share our resources.
Can't have that, can we?