I'm not going to bother to argue with you. You'll just crush whatever I say. Let's just say that he is among the worst people to ever walk the face of this earth, and that he had to be taken down. The world is now a better place. Iraq is now happier then ever. The bombers will be crushed, and the US will win the war. Is that what you wanted to hear? Because I just said it...
* sigh * I just don't know what to say. This world can be shitty at times, with all these people hating each other. Some say religion is the cause of it, others say that war is natural for humans, and there is no way to stop it. The human race has been pecked at with wars, plauges, natural disasters, and hardships, but we have still managed to survive. Time will tell the full consequences of the war in Iraq, and hopefully, it will reflect a good cause and a good resolution. Nobody will ever truly get along with everyone, but I just hope that people try, and people will have a will for peace, not a will for war and terror. Then again, we can't change will, and if there is a group of people who's will is to kill people, then we can only counter them with force, because trying to convince them to not do it will only intensify the situation. The middle east will obviously never be the same after this conflict, but hopefully, that reflects a good thing. One can also hope that other world situations can be resolved in our upcoming years, but perhaps with a more peaceful approach. Then again, if will for war is the case, then we, or others, will have to enforce the idea of peace with force. Kind of oxymoronic, but unfortunately, it would be one of the only things that would work out. That's how we had to act in the past, and that is how we will probably have to act in the future. World peace is at hope for many people, but because of the natural unbalace of things, it is highly unprobable. But like I said before, we can only hope for the best, which means striving to achieve peace and love in the world in any way we can. Trying to control unbalance of things is the worng way to approach conflicts, and usually does not work, as history has proven. Instead, an idea of acceptance of unbalance, and help for any victims who are hurt from the unbalance is the more logical way to approach conflicts. Unless, of course, the winning side of an unbalanced conflict has it's will set on absolutely crushing any hope or help for the losing side of a conflict, in which case, force must be used. So perhaps, those of you who read this, might start thinking of the true roots and origins of war and conflict. As some philosophers state: War and Conflict is natural, because unbalance is natural, and human will to fix unbalance is natural, which evolves into a confilct. These ideas can obviously be countered and questioned, but they do have their meaning. At hard times, simple hope can be all we have to survive a conflict, because we may face terrible and horrid things and situations. But hopefully, our hope for peace, at least to the fullest possible extent, is a reality that our generations will face.
I would like to apologize to people for my previous post on the crimes of saddam, I was a bit angered, and changed the numbers a bit to try and fight my point. Giancarlo's explanation is more correct. I'm sorry again for that.