|
Edited on Sat Dec-30-06 02:19 AM by Nikki Stone1
LA Woman's thread is entirely legitimate. I disagree with some of her points, but her overall thesis, that far less monstrous people than Saddam Hussein--and even arguably some good people--have been vilified after death here on the board is worthy of debate. Yet Saddam Hussein, a brutal thug, gets sympathy from many. I understand that most of us feel that Saddam's hanging is some kind of grisley PR victory for Junior, even though Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and even though the US supported this brutal dictator as long as he was doing our bidding. I also understand that US troops, commanded by mercenaries (like CACI) are keeping some forms of torture alive in the very place where Saddam did some of his worst work.
I get the rage at George W. AWOL. There is no moral victory for him in all this. Someone wrote that it was an expensive hit and I am inclined to agree.
On the other hand, Saddam Hussein was not Mother Teresa and the world is not losing a bright light but an incredibly brutal dictator. LA Woman had the right to ask why the double standard: Why is Jon Benet Ramsey's mom (or Aaron Spelling for chrissake!) a more worthy target for vilification than someone who actually killed people? LA Woman had a good point.
Locking her thread because "it wasn't helpful" is odd. First, what does that mean, not helpful? How many damned threads on DU GD are helpful? Take a look at all the "I'm leaving" threads where people bitch and moan that DU is uncivil, mean, unkind to puppies, etc. These threads don't get locked.
Look at some of the silliness that gets left up. For every brilliant thread by H2O Man or Kpete or Nancy Gregs, there are 20 threads on "Why Hillary can't win" "Why Obama can't win" "Why the Democrats are weenies" etc. Are those kinds of threads helpful?
Before you lock this thread for not being helpful, it might be worthwhile to do some thinking about what we stand for here.
|