>This is part of why I felt that killing Saddam was not the best thing to do:
CAIRO, Egypt – The execution of Saddam Hussein has sparked a wave of support for the former Iraqi leader around the Arab world, with some proclaiming him a martyr and comparing him to heroes of Arab nationalism — raising resentment against the United States and Iraq’s Shiite-led government.
My Commentary: I believe that redemptive violence is a lie. The cycle needs to end. There will be retribution until someone (some group) is enlightened enough to absorb the blow without retaliation. To respond with creativity instead of violence.
Some people say… But Sadam did evil things. We had to put a stop to him.
Yes, he did evil things. That is a fairly unanimous opinion.
Yes, stopping him was a good idea. However, there is a difference between stopping him and killing him. And there are many other despots who need to be stopped, but we (our government) allows them to continue to rule and destroy. How does the government decide who to stop with military force and who to leave in power? I think it is connected to you and me. It seems to me that they will take out individuals that the public (you and me) will allow. They also take out governments in regions that strategically benefit the U.S. economy.
And when did Sadam become evil? When did he cross the line and need to be killed? The U.S. government was content to supply him with weaponry as long as he only attacked Iran. That’s not evil. But it is evil to attack Kuwait and the Kurds. Hypocrisy in U.S. foreign policy and in the use of the label evil is bewildering.