It’s funny to see moral relativists (which most liberals are) talk about how all death–even the death of an insanely evil man–is bad. I thought only moral absolutists were able to say anything is good or bad, let alone make a statement such as “X is universally bad in all cases.”
I’m barely able to contain my joy at Saddam’s death! Never again can he shoot, maim, injure, torture, or order such things! Never again can he pay $20,000 to the family of Palestinians for murdering innocent Israelis! Never again will he develop and release chemical weapons on innocent men, women and children! Never again will he threaten the civilized world with nuclear death!
Do you remember the story of Hansel and Gretel? In the story, Hansel and Gretel meet a wicked witch who would like to eat the children. They are able to trick the witch and end up killing her, quite on purpose. Did they mourn the passing of another human? No! They sung a song: Ding Dong the Witch is Dead!
For those of you who don’t feel as if this is the best holiday season of your life today, I want to reason with you logically about this.
First, let’s examine death itself. Is death bad? No, death is neither bad nor good. It just is. Everyone will die, eventually, some from so-called natural causes, others because of violence.
For some, death is a welcome relief from the constant pain and suffering of this fallen world. For others, it is a step into the unknown, a journey they will not be anticipating.
But what about for everyone else? The death of a very, very evil man is a good thing because that evil man cannot do evil things anymore. If there was a chance, even a sliver of a chance, that that bad man would change, then perhaps we could’ve allowed him to exercise his agency and choose good, and perhaps he could’ve done a lot of good for this world in the end. But there is very little evidence that people who do very evil things such as waging genocide on their own people ever change. In fact, there is NO instance of any homicidal tyrant ever waking up and deciding that maybe representative democracy is better than a dictatorship, and maybe all those political prisoners should be allowed to roam free and say what they please against their leader.
We certainly gave Saddam plenty of chances to change. Even on the eve of the final war on Iraq, we gave him clear conditions he could meet that would cause us not to invade his country. Saddam refused to abide by those terms, but offered his own terms, as if we were still at the bargaining table. If anything, we should’ve overturned this man’s government after the first Gulf War, and allowed his people to try him for the crimes he had already committed against them at that time.
Regardless, we had given him countless UN resolutions, countless opportunity to come clean with the inspectors, countless opportunities to come clean at the negotiation tables. He never did cooperate, not even a little bit. Why? Because this man was incapable of ever doing anything good ever again. He was thoroughly and completely consumed with evil. He thought we were issuing vain threats, and that we were a “paper tiger” as the Chinese like to call us.
Now he never will have an opportunity to comply with the sanctions and inspections of the UN, nor the terms of the treaty he signed. He will also never have another opportunity to kill, injure, or torture even one more soul. We are free from Saddam forever!