Opinion » Readers feedback

George Person: My response on the Rwanda issue

After responding directly to your assertion, Charles Fargo, you wander off into supposition, and an overall generalization of my viewpoints...which largely misses the mark... 
In the world we have no absolutes....we don't automatically do this, because of that, and that because of this.....if we can respond to an injustice, we will; if we can't, we won't...the difference between sending troops into Iraq versus Rwanda is in Iraq we have no choice...we must change the political atmosphere of the middle-east or risk a military showdown...and risk more terrorist attacks in America....now, judging by your attitudes, if millions of people were to die from such an attack in the United States, it wouldn't hurt your feelings, because the United Sates is a racist, genocide state, who has no right to exist, because of the illegitimacy of its birth....and the fact your ancestors were killed in confrontations with Gen . Washington's army, when they sided with the British during the American Revolution...and fell victim to retribution of Colonial forces when they were driven from their homelands and driven into starvation, further slanting your position...
 
When it came to Iraq...there are absolutely no lies....just absolutely no hard evidence ...but plenty of information has surfaced that Saddam wanted nuclear material, and the USA can take no chances with the Middle - East...Saddam is a mirror reflection of Iran, who is working very diligently to create a nuclear program which can "smash the bones of Israel."
 
Now, the laws of Islam are judging Saddam...we are just enforcers allowing Democracy to take hold, when people can have a political identity and decide what direction their country will take...
 
The chaos in Iraq is being caused by the troops who were loyal to Saddam, who were living fat and happy, until the USA  kicked them out of a good job, by allowing Saddam to rule, with the use of fear, torture, and death - we did a great service to the world by not allowing this man, for one more second, to enjoy the good life, that being an absolute ruler of Iraq brought him...and ridding ourselves of a threat, that Saddam represented to our country...once we attacked his country, and Osama wanted to play the role of a loose political cannon, the possibilities of this two in tandem were just to great, in light of the shadowy activity of Saddam's WMD aspirations...
 
Its not half - truths we are speaking...it's hard truths and hard evidence of Saddam's weapons programs...I'm satisfied with softer information about Saddam's intentions...
 
Any man who uses chemical weapons on his own people is evil...and the only reason he was able to do it was because he had a bunch of armed henchmen carrying out his orders with a kiss and a caress of his military elite...And once the opportunity came in to allow the country to make a break a develop a better lifestyle for the country's people, Saddam's disbanded troops went on the guerrilla attack...
 
I suppose a great paradox of Charles Fargo is when the USA goes in to help a country to get rid of an evil dictator, you complain we are doing wrong...and when we don't go in to help a country take control of its government from genocidal forces we are wrong...so, really, whatever the USA does is wrong - making your article and response rather moot...
 
So what are you?! Are you for government intervention or against government intervention - when its in our power to do so?!  Or are you just against the USA, and will never support the freedom of the American way...a way in which people from all nations of the world enjoy in today...
 
George Person
Phoenix, Arizona