People are arguing about the verdict of Saddam Hussain. But why argue?
Let us follow the advice of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and "simply say: 'Let us calculate, without further ado, in order to see who is right.'"
And "to rectify our reasonings" so as "to make them as tangible as those of the mathematicians, so that we can find our error at a glance" let us use a table:
|No.||The Accused||The Alleged Crime||The Reasons for the Alleged Crime||The Verdict||Comments|
|1||Saddam Hussain||Killing 148 people.||Reprisals for an attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussain.||Death by hanging.||An attempt to assassinate a head of state would have been seen as crime in any country. The presumption here, however, is that the people killed were civilians, whose guilt has not been established by a legal process. But such killings of civilians, who are presumed to be hostile in some way without any proof of any guilt, is common practice in today's "War on Terror". The Israeli have been killing civilians and destroying houses in Gaza in the past five years as routine operations. And destruction of cities and villages in Iraq and Afghanistan are seen as normal operations. A recent destruction of a school in North West Pakistan was another example of such "War on Terror" activities. In what way are these actions different from the "reprisals" of Saddam Hussain? Why are they not seen as crimes?|
|2||George W. Bush||Killing 30,000 to 600,000 people.||No valid reason produced. All the reasons given for the Iraq War so far were either factually false, or logically invalid, and lacked any sound legal basis whatsoever.||None. He is still at large and even has retained his Presidential Office.||The 30,000 is the figure admitted by the Americans. The 600,000 is an estimate by some scientists. The true figure will be never known. But it is certainly not less than the admitted 30,000. But even if to accept the 30,000, the number of deaths caused by G.W Bush is 202.70 times greater than the 148 caused by Saddam Hussain. Should G.W. Bush be given 202 death sentences by an American court, to keep the score even? Or would one be enough (as the other 201 would have beeen purely symbolic)?|
Now that we have the facts and figures in front of us it is just a question of using one's ability of logical reasoning. Which we leave as an exercise to you, the Reader.
But Saddam Hussain is put on trial not because of what he had done, but because of what he had failed to do. He had failed to develop an effective "nuclear deterrent". Because, if had real Weapons of Mass Destruction, which he could have deployed at a touch of a button, Iraq would not have been attacked by the Americans, and the 30,000 to 600,000 Iraqis (and some 3,000 Americans) would not have died in Iraq.
By having failed to develop an effective Nuclear Deterrent he had left Iraq unprotected and vulnerable to foreign aggression.
And this is why all small countries on G.W. Bush's hit list are turning towards developing their nuclear deterrents to protect themselves and their people.
What other way can they protect themselves as long as the likes of George Bush and Tony Blair are at large?