More Replies to Scott’s NST Letters on Iraq

Two fellas replied to my last letter, but compared to Mukhriz Mahathir and potentially ISIS, I kinda don’t have the interest to respond.

(It’s now confirmed – 750,000 lives saved by Bush.)

From NST Letters 14 April 2009, a rather shallow and amateurish attempt that ignores the fact that Saddam was a total jerk:

IRAQ WAR: Such unilateral decisions must not be tolerated

Email to friend Print article

I FIND the letter by Scott Thong Y.Y. (“Was it so rosy under Saddam?” — NST, April 10) to be a direct insult to the notion of international law and social justice.

The US March 2003 invasion of Iraq raised a fundamental issue under international law because it had no support from the United Nations. The US justification for attacking Iraq and violating its sovereignty was based on two flawed grounds — Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and its alleged support for al-Qaeda.

However, at the end of Bush’s administration, it was revealed that Iraq had no such WMD as alleged. Even the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation could not support Bush’s claim on the al-Qaeda charge.

Recent disclosure via a series of Senate reviews of US pre-war intelligence confirmed that “the Bush administration repeatedly presented intelligence (relating to Iraq’s WMD capabilities) as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent … “.

The results relied upon by Thong in the BBC survey and the ORB survey would have been very different had they been carried out during the early days of the US invasion of Iraq.

Whatever the end results in Iraq today, the US administration under Barack Obama must take serious note of the fact that the UN and the international community will no longer tolerate an Iraq-style approach in resolving any kind of international dispute.

And again from NST Letters 14 April 2009, who at least acknowledges Saddam’s badness. I have a minor correction for him that I don’t know if I should send in to NST:

IRAQ WAR: Bush must accept blame for chaos
By : RUZAINI FIKRI MOHD AZMAN, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur

I REFER to Scott Thong Yu Yuen’s response (“Was it so rosy under Saddam?” — NST, April 10) to Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir’s comments on the Iraq war (“Invasion can’t be justified” — NST, April 9).

Thong justifies the US invasion of Iraq by stating that most of the killings in Iraq were caused by al-Qaeda (whom the Iraqis hate), that the US has brought democracy and peace to Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein was such a monster that any other person ruling Iraq would have been better.

Yes, al-Qaeda had a hand in the killings of civilians in Iraq. But does this justify the invasion by the US and does it justify the atrocities of the US on Iraqi soil?

Let’s talk about the al-Qaeda presence in Iraq. Why did these attacks happen, not during Saddam’s reign, but during the US occupation?

A simplistic answer would be that they hate Americans. But one must also understand that the chaos that exists in Iraq today is because of the invasion.

The US occupation, which succeeded in toppling Saddam but not in providing a strong government, has left Iraq in chaos, with clashes between the Shia majority and the Sunni, Kurd and Christian minorities, making it easier for the infiltration of al-Qaeda agents into the country.

Thong also claimed that the Iraq war has brought more peace and freedom compared with 30 years of despotism and deprivation under Saddam.

No one is saying that Saddam is a saint; we acknowledge he committed atrocities against Shia and Kurds.

But he was also responsible for making Iraq a strong country in the Middle East, providing universities, museums and hospitals. All of these were destroyed by the US.

I do not know which “more peace and freedom” Thong is referring to, when even the simplest action, such as teenagers going out on a date, allowed under Saddam’s reign, is now a crime.

Look at the atrocities committed by the US. Was it not the US that was responsible for the torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison?

What about the Mahmudiyya massacre, where five US soldiers killed an entire family, then gang-raped, murdered and set on fire a 14-year-old girl?

At the end of the day, the responsibility for the situation in Iraq, with the loss of lives, the infiltration of terrorist organisations and the destruction of national heritage and infrastructure, must lie with the decision of President George W. Bush to invade Iraq in 2003.

If by ‘Mahmudiyya massacre’, he means the Mahmudiyah incident, all those involved were charged in court. Can the same be said for Al Qaeda’s torturers? Note how he cleverly didn’t quote the Haditha incident, where 7 out of 8 of the Marines have been acquitted and one awaits trial.

And here’s one who goes the old ‘Why didn’t Bush rescue Darfur’ route, which if he actually had, he would be demonized for as well, duh?

From NST Letters 16 April 2009:

IRAQ WAR: Ulterior motive seems likely

THE letter “Was it so rosy under Saddam” (NST, April 10) is an excellent example of how shrewd one can be arguing about an issue, in this case, the Iraq War, and pretend to make sense out of nothing. That’s what I think Scott Thong Yu Yuen is all about.

The thrust of his argument was basically: how can anyone argue that Bush was a murderer when Saddam Hussein was even worse? And he sought to defend his premise by saying that Saddam killed more people than George W. Bush did.

But surely what we are talking about is not how many died under Bush and Saddam, but whether Bush had the legal authority to invade Iraq, a sovereign country.

Otherwise, where is the legal justification for the Americans killing Iraqis (under whatever name) whom he called “terrorists”, who died resisting the invasion? If they had not entered Iraq, would the question of how many Americans and Iraqis had been killed have arisen at all?

Thong cannot say that Bush entered Iraq to save the Iraqis from Saddam. Where is the international law that allows one country to invade another to save its people under tyranny, so-called, in the absence of any imminent threat to the invader and without a United Nations sanction?

If that is permissible, then what would Thong say if the Russians invaded the US because they wanted to free blacks from the tyranny of whites? Would he say that would be right, too?

It’s strange indeed that Colin Powell, former US secretary of state, did not tell the UN that he had solid proof that Saddam was killing his own people, but instead said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which has never been proven. In fact, it has been admitted by the US that the information was utter rubbish.

Even if we go along with Thong’s argument that Bush entered Iraq to save it from Saddam, can this be true? Millions were being killed in the civil strife in Rwanda but Bush did not lift a finger to save any of them.

So, putting the two together, we must conclude that the Americans invaded Iraq not to save the Iraqis but to save Iraq’s oil for themselves, which they now say they are justified in taking as the Iraqis have to compensate them for giving them their so-called “freedom”.

It’s basically pointless to continue arguing, as the mindset of the majority in Malaysia is that America (and the Jews, somehow) is fundamentally evil and cannot possibly do anything for the sake of good.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

13 Responses to “More Replies to Scott’s NST Letters on Iraq”

  1. bob Says:

    of course you don’t have the interest to respond.. coz your tiny narrow minded US+jews licking brain has absolutely nothing to counter points made by those just made yourself plain stupid with your letters sent to nst.. it must be sad to be in your shoes.. thinking that you alone can change the view of all malaysians with regards to illegal invasion of UShit on iraqis soil..

  2. Scott Thong Says:

    I don’t think I could ever change the views of Malaysians, or Muslims and liberals worldwide for that matter. However, what I can do is influence a few people to a different way of thinking.

    Besides, I have many other battles to join – like mocking BN and debunking global warming.

    And I’m pretty please, not sad – with each ‘stupid’ letter of mine that gets published, more and more my renown as Malaysia’s Leading Neocon is solidly cemented. The son of Dr M himself took up my challenge, dude!

    Whereas if I were to join the usual anti-US, pro-BN chorus, my amazing voice would be drowned in the parroting.

    (By the way, BN is the local political coalition in power, in case you didn’t know, Herr German.)

  3. Adifferentvoice Says:

    narrowminded people, bob? does that include you? change the mind of all malaysians? all? did you really believe all malaysians are narrowminded? that’s pathetic. if you’re malaysian, that’s sad. if you’re not, that’s insulting.

  4. hoosierarmymom Says:

    OK Scott, nice try, but no cigar. Just pack up the family and move to Indiana! I’ll get the guest room ready for you and you can “drink lots of tea” and become a “Right Wing Extremist” with the rest of us. 🙂

    You did a good job, but somehow these people won’t get it until they are living under threat of death unless they use a government commode.

  5. hoosierarmymom Says:

    Oh… and Bob, you just made yourself sound extremely stupid with your comment! Improper punctuations, no caps, and bad grammar tells me you are no Rhodes Scholar!

    Sometimes people just get tired of trying to express common sense and facts to an audience that is too demented to even read it and think.

  6. peng Says:

    Scott, just leave them alone.. they are not worth your time to rebut anything. Because the truth will not get through their thick minds. Yes, they won’t get it until they are living under threat.

  7. wits0 Says:

    The fully indoctrinated true believers in the BN/umno educational system always shriek like Bob. Somethings never vary in Bolehland. They never grow a brain, much like the US leftist libs.

  8. Scott Thong Says:

    Indeed, I will save up my comparison of US soldiers and UN peacekeepers vis-a-vis rape and child rape for another time lol!

  9. Adifferentvoice Says:

    Appropriate to say people like bob keeps popping up, and bob on the surface of whatever (heard of the saying, “shit floats to the surface”?).

  10. Joy Says:

    Scott pretty please with his ‘stupid’ letter.

    And his cadres pretty pleased with his ‘ stupid ’ words that he indoctrinated them.

  11. Scott Thong Says:

    But I suspecting your Engrish teechur not pretty please with your grammar.

  12. Adifferentview Says:

    There is no Joy in reading two sentences of insults Joy. Try to say something substantial, Joy. Please? Pretty please? LOL.

  13. Adifferentview Says:

    Cadres. Indoctrinated. Not bad, Joy! Got those words from a political tract on Communism, or anti-Communism? Very old-fashioned words…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: