I’m glad he’s been caught. I hope it leads to a slowing in the rate of our soldiers and Iraqi civilians being killed.
PAD
85 comments on “PETER’S REAL WORLD BLOG ENTRY ON SADDAM”
Indeed.
Sadly, you’re right about most Americans only thinking “we caught a bad guy! Re-elect Bush!”.
People who think like that make me (an American) think that a good portion of our contry is made up of useless sacks of flesh with all the intellectual capacity of decomosing roadkill.
Sadly, you’re right about most Americans only thinking “we caught a bad guy! Re-elect Bush!”.
Funny, on this very blog, someone was saying that the Bush administration would try to cover up its “failure” by saying that Saddam wasn’t that important. No you guys are.
People who think like that make me (an American) think that a good portion of our contry is made up of useless sacks of flesh with all the intellectual capacity of decomosing roadkill.
And people wonder why the left has no popularity.
To paraphrase Joe Lieberman, if it had been up to Peter David, Hussein would still be in power. You might not call that support, but he wouldn’t have cared. Since you opposed the invasion, shouldn’t you demand that hussein be restored to power?
To paraphrase Joe Lieberman, if it had been up to Peter David, Hussein would still be in power.
Noooo. If it were “up to Peter David,” Saddam would be out of power, along with every other despot and bášŧárd currently hurting citizens in this world.
But the world is not black and white; the world is grays. The argument could well be made that we made Saddam superflous because we proved that we could kill innocent Iraqis just as well, if not better, than he. The argument could well be made that we tossed aside a chance–at a time when the world sympathized with us–to create a genuine world coalition to not only do away with terrorism, but the circumstances which foster terrorism. Instead we confirmed the words of every terrorist propagandist who ever depicted the United States as an unreasonable, military-driven, conquering country. That we accomplished the short-term goal of stopping a (non-existent) threat to the United States with the long-term result of exacerbating the overall problem of terrorism.
Instead the argument boils down to, “If you see any grays, any shadings, any downsides, then you would rather Saddam were in power.”
Which is bûllšhìŧ.
PAD
Since you opposed the invasion, shouldn’t you demand that hussein be restored to power?
Bûllšhìŧ. Utter bûllšhìŧ. That’s the equivalent of saying: “Because you were so anti-Clinton, shouldn’t you decline to accept the profits you made off your stocks during his tenure.”
I was anti-invasion because a) Dubya didn’t convince me why we were doing it, b) as it went along, the reasons why kept on changing, c) we still hadn’t (and haven’t) cleaned up our mess in Afgahnistan and d) I knew we did not have a clear exit plan.
Travis
Excellent news that the tyrant has been caught. I just hope all the aftermath doesn’t get caught up in too much beaurocratic red tape,
Where do we hold a trial ?
When do we hold a trial?
How long will the trial last?
What do we do with him then?
Pros & cons of the death penalty?
It will probably cost more money to put the bášŧárd on trial than the whole war did and the paparazzi will make shitloads of money from selling all the photos of court case. It makes me sick to realise just how much money some people are making out of other peoples misery.
Now one deranged dictator is out of the way lets see if we can get put bin-laden out the picture as well.
People that “supported” the war never wanna bring up the reason for the war..which was Weapons of Mass Destruction and the eminent danger facing us. Which have both not appeared or have been proven not true. We can’t just start a war. We had rules and procedures to follow. We are part of a world not just the United States. Yes we know Saddam was a bad man, but we know about the atrocities in China and North Korea and in other Mid Eastern countries, but we aren’t doing anything about them. No, Saddam was just an easy target to get people thinking we were doing something, even though there was no evidence linking him to the “war on terror” or of WMD. People read headlines but never the actual context. Do you even know that we don’t count how many civilians are killed and we urged the “new” Iraqian government not to any more either ( we said the numbers are too varied and couldn’t be proven to be useful!! )
There was a better way to get Saddam out of office, there was a safer way, and there was a legal way….we chose not to take any of those choices!
And its laughable at how the word “unpatriotic” is thrown around when someone doesn’t agree with the war or Bush. We can be patriotic and we can support our troops or hope that they don’t get killed and can come home soon, but we don’t have to be blindly led by politicians trying to divert attention from their failures as leaders. I can be a proud American but still be embarrassed of my Government officials.
I direct everyone to a speech made by President Bush on 1/28/2003: his State of the Union Address.
I direct people there because of one simple point. Our overall objectives in Iraq, from the first day Bush spoke of them in a speech, have NEVER changed.
Yes, one objective was to locate and destroy WMDs, some that the UN concluded Saddam Hussein had.
But right in his Address, the president said that liberation of Iraq, and a toppling of Saddam’s regime was another goal.
There was no change of the objectives, as so many people think. I have heard said “well, he can’t find WMDs, so now we are there to liberate Iraq”.
Read the words he spoke earlier this year.
Nothing changed.
“Funny, on this very blog, someone was saying that the Bush administration would try to cover up its “failure” by saying that Saddam wasn’t that important. No you guys are.”
While it’s foolish to be critical of someone for agreeing with you, it’s not as foolish to question one’s motivation for doing so, though it is a much trickier proposition.
I think the allegation was that Bush would have put forth the manhunt and if it failed, would have declared Hussein unimportant despite all the money and man-hours put into finding him.
Of course, there was almost no chance of it failing, since Hussein was probably the second most wanted man in the world. Even his nearest and dearest would see the price on his head before they saw his face. Saddam had nobody to trust, and the man is frankly too used to the high life to take easily to living in caves. I’m sure he turned himself in or was caught pretty quickly after the official report was made that he had left Baghdad (if not before), just as I’m sure he’s going to be holed up in Guantanamo Bay until the US Citizenry forgets about him like we did Manuel Noriega, and he’ll retire to the south of France with a new face.
Well, wolfknight, he actually said no such thing about liberation being a goal in that address (he did say that such would be an outcome of the end of Hussein’s regime, by any that accompished that removal).
He did not say that removal of the regime was a goal in that address – he did say it was a desirable outcome and policy, but pointed explicitly to disarming the regime as the goal.
Here is the direct quote:
“…we will lead a coalition to disarm him.”
The only reference to the U.N. conclusion of WMD referred to a 1999 report, and those items, and various discrepancies in absolute numbers between then and now have been accounted for.
Have no illusions about changing your views, but what you posit simply is not included in the text of the address you cite.
“Noooo. If it were “up to Peter David,” Saddam would be out of power, along with every other despot and bášŧárd currently hurting citizens in this world.”
“up to Peter David” isn’t really expressing the thought correctly as I percieve it. If you’d had your druthers in the world theatre, we never would have entered Iraq, thus had it been “up to you” Hussein, due to a lack of American invasion, would still be in power.
I sympathize with your ideal world, but there’s no need to ride somebody for poor use of grammar.
Unless you’re going to start doing it all the time, in which case, I can fully get behind that.
I think The Wisdom of Solomon summed it up best: “Though living through great unrest, due to ignorance they do call such tremendous evils, peace.”
You’re right. Nothing changed. Which means we broke internaional law and invaded a country illegally! We killed and destroyed with out the support or the vote of the UN, but then ask them for money in rebuilding what we destroyed and seek to block them from any rebuilding contracts because they didn’t help destroy what we did. Good Grief!
I don’t know anyone who isn’t happy that Saddam Hussein has been captured. That he was an evil, brutal tyrant who committed horrific crimes against his own people is a fact beyond reproach.
It is my hope that now that he has been permanently removed from power, the Iraqi people may be more willing to help us fight the guerrilla forces remaining in Iraq without fear of retaliation if Saddam returns to power. Now that he is thoroughly beaten and humiliated, the Iraqi people should have no reason to fear him anymore.
That said, I remain as skeptical today as I was last week that democracy can be “imposed” on a country like Iraq from the outside. I fear that, as he did in Afghanistan, Bush will simply declare victory (“Mission Accomplish”) and and ignore the problem as the country slides into anarchy. I fear that a new dictator will simply rise to power the moment our troops pull out of Baghdad. We’ve got the devil we know, but what if the next devil is even worse?
I also resent that Osama bin Laden remains a free man and that had we put as determined a manhunt to find him as we did to find Hussein, he’d be in Getmo by now.
Actually, I was a Bush supporter originally, and am still more conservative than I am liberal. What I ment by “I hate people who think like that” was that many people will immediately praise Bush for the successful capture of Saddam, when he had little to nothing to do with the military operation that ended in Hussein being captured.
I’m probably going to vote Democrat in the next election, simply because of how fantastically fûçkëd this country has become under the idiot son of an áššhølë. I thought for awhile that a Republican president would do the country some good. Instead, there are high unemployment rates and our soldiers are dying every day in Iraq. Hëll, I supported the war, and I think that the follow up has been piss-poor.
I’m worried that the morons of this country will re-elect Bush simply because of his “War on Terror”, which, while it has yeilded some results, can be taken care of under the reign of another president.
Meanwhile, who wants cookies?
I’m still amazed der fuhrer Bush didn’t just keep Hussein under strict supervision till say… July or August of 2004, (i.e. Just before the election) and THEN bring him in…).
Osama is still free, and there are still millions of Americans out of work and sufferings, seeing no benefit for the so-called “improving economy”.
I’d love to see the numbers on this x-mas shopping season and see how many people actually had the money they spent on x-mas presents and how many just charged up the credit cards even further with no way to pay them off in the immediate future….
I still hate Bush and won’t vote for in 2004 until he shows himself to be remotely human…
O.k., so here’s a theory that my dentist floated to me a few months ago. Osama bin-Laden (OBL) comes from an oil family right-export that oil. So my dentist thought that OBL isn’t anywhere on land, he’s on a boat, more specifically, an oil tanker of his family’s. He’s floating around the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian-who knows?
He’s managing the Taliban from there and is completely mobile and near impossible to find in the vastness of the world’s oceans.
Just something to make you go “hmmmm.”
-tpl
I also resent that Osama bin Laden remains a free man and that had we put as determined a manhunt to find him as we did to find Hussein, he’d be in Getmo by now
Really? I find that almost magical thinking. The fact is, we were told where to find Saddam and even then they almost missed him. It may well come out that US soldiers have walked over several “spider holes” in the last 6 months.
Finding Osama is pretty much a needle in the haystack situation, and we don’t even know which farm has the haystack. I’ve read some very good pundits who claimed that evidence suggested he was in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Or somewhere else. We can probably rule out the Arctic Circle and the Pearl Islands–and the latter only because if he HAD been there Rupert would have killed him (Wouldn’t that have been GREAT?).
The argument could well be made that we tossed aside a chance–at a time when the world sympathized with us–to create a genuine world coalition to not only do away with terrorism, but the circumstances which foster terrorism.
I think the idea that the whole world was ready to do what needed to be done and the opportunity was lost by the perfidious Bush is a lovely story but not much grounded in reality. As a wise man once said:
The French will always do exactly the opposite on what the United States wants regardless of what happens, so we’re never going to have a consistent policy,” – Howard Dean, 1998,
“as it went along, the reasons why kept on changing” Travis
There was a former president that went to war after talks failed, and the original reason for going to war was lost upon those that were affected, on both sides, as the war was fought. The president never made an official change of policy, that I know of, but the reason for the war being fought changed.
The American Civil War. The original reason for the north to go against the south was to preserve the union, but later changed to freeing the slaves. Funny how history has a way of repeating itself. The results are still the same, no matter how you argue about the why. I’m not saying that the ends justify the means, I’m saying that arguing the “why” of it, doesn’t change the fact that what’s done is done. If it was to find WMD, or preserve the union, but ended up being to stop the cruelty of a tyrant committing attrocities against HUMAN KIND, or to free the slaves, the end is the same.
Maybe the WMD have not been found, but just because they haven’t been found doesn’t mean they don’t still exist. I’ve never seen God, but I know he exists.
Why don’t we invade North Korea or any other place that is giving us a problem and the leaders are ruling with an Iron Hand? 1) Give us time, we only have so many people in the military since it is strictly a volunteer force at this point. 2) Please refer to the current issues of FF by Mark Waid, the Authoritative Action story.
Domo
Ahhh! So this war is as important as the Civil War was.
That makes no sense, you realize that right, you can comprehend that you just attempted to make a link at least as bad as Saddam=9/11, right?
I missed the part right before the Civil War where the North had inspectors in the south and other countries were helping out.
Must have been sick that day.
1. I’m thrilled for the Iraqi people and for US and UK servicemen and women that Hussein has been caught. Assuming he’s brought to trial in accord with the highest standards of international justice and with the full participation of the emerging post-Hussein Iraqi state, there’s nothing to say about this per se other than: “Huzzah, Huzzah, Huzzah!”
2. I do hope that many citizens of the US–including its current Administration– are prepared to accept the lessons and facts of history that may emerge out of that trial, namely our tacit and explicit approval of the man and his brutality, including his use of weapons of mass destruction, throughout the 1980s. Let’s understand how we got here, by all means, now that we’ve begun to make right of the situation.
3) I don’t feel one dámņ bit safer from terrorist or state-sponsored terrorist attack now that he’s in custody. I don’t know anyone who does. I don’t know anyone who would if even Osma bin Laden were to be captured. Have we drained the swamp? Have we truly even started to do so? Or have we reduced an incredibly complex international situation that took decades to create and will take decades to undo down to two or three super-villians and their henchmen? For every former dictator or fundamentalist mullah we’ve taken down, I can give you handfuls of Afghani or Iraqui children killed by bombs gone awry. More to the point, I give you all their surviving relatives, all their neighbors, and more super-villians ready to step in and exploit their hate.
Does having Hussein mean it gets easier to drain the swamp, now? Does it mean we’ve even come to understand what we need to do? Or does it mean we declare victory (again) and start packing even faster?
4) Remember the Maine. Revisionist history about the causes for war can be performed by everyone. I’m waiting for the soundbite along the lines of “We said we were going in to end his reign of terror and get ‘im, and we’ve done just that.” Or did I miss that one, already? Rove’s no fool, after all, and it scans well….
Should Saddam be killed or imprisoned for the rest of his life? I feel if we put Saddam to court and exacute him we will be know better then Saddam himself.
I happened to catch an interview with the White House Communications director on CNN earlier, and he mentioned that one of the great accomplishments of this presidency was the removal of the Taliban. Since the Taliban still seems to be live and kicking, and according to recent reports, growing stronger, would it have been more accurate to say they ‘moved the Taliban?’ They seem to be moving back.
Yeah, really, Joe. Not only is Osama at large, but no one seems to be talking about the fact that Mullah Omar, the actual leader of the Taliban, is still at large too.
I guess I see a different issues here. Saddam has been out of power for quite a period of time, yet there are still people dying in Iraq. Shouldn’t that be focused on. Who really cares if one individual is in or out of power if the same thing is still happening in a different way.
Terrorists will always exist they can’t be illiminated. The things that are being done to create them should be the focus of change. If it is reasonable possible to take away their reason for fighting you, then you have no worries. So Saddam was caught, what has changed?
Really? I find that almost magical thinking. The fact is, we were told where to find Saddam and even then they almost missed him. It may well come out that US soldiers have walked over several “spider holes” in the last 6 months
Well, can you even tell me what we’re doing to find him?
How about remembering the last time his name even crossed George “We’re going to get him dead or alive” Bush’s lips?
I’m not too sure Bush getting re-elected is as simple as this war, or capturing Saddam or Bin Laden. I am a teacher and I don’t know how things are on the coasts but in the midwest, I cannot think of one teacher (or anyone in education for that matter) who is going to vote for Bush as long as he and his administration are backing this “No Child Left Behind” bûllšhìŧ. I don’t know if any of you have read up on it, but it is basically demanding a 100% pass/success rate of All students in all schools. This includes BD / LD / kids of parents who don’t give a šhìŧ about their education and don’t care if they never turn in ANY homework.
That would be like telling him (Bush) – go ahead and fight your war in Iraq – but NO ONE – not one soldier – can die or get injured. The odds of that happening are about the same as the odds of a 100% success rate for all children. Although I voted for him in the last election – unless Satan himself is running against Bush – he does not have my vote.
Cribbed from another user somewhere on the internet…
George W. Bush told us that we needed to go to war with Iraq because the Iraqis were living under a fascist regime, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, and Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Other nations have fascist regimes (Saudi Arabia), yet George W. Bush has shown no interest in them.
Other nations have brutal dictators (the Congo), yet George W. Bush has shown no interest in them.
Other nations have weapons of mass destruction (North Korea), yet George W. Bush has shown no interest in them.
Other nations have fascist regimes, brutal dictators, and weapons of mass destruction (Pakistan), yet George W. Bush has shown no interest in them.
Only one nation is sitting on a tremendous reserve of oil, the annexation of which will benefit the United States (and American-based petroleum companies) for decades to come.
George W. Bush has shown a lot of interest in that country, hasn’t he?
You know, I still can’t quite figure out why Bush continues to get a pass from so many on the missing WMDs. If they do exist, then they’re still located somewhere in a nation that currently experiencing a US caused power vaccum that’s become a mecca of sorts for anti-American insurgents.
I would think that anyone who was willing to believe Bush when he said that there were WMDs in Iraq (which, as far as I know, the President still believes) would be mighty worried right now.
Daremo wrote:
>>Maybe the WMD have not been found, but just because they haven’t been found doesn’t mean they don’t still exist. I’ve never seen God, but I know he exists.<<
Maybe He has the WMDs.
Seriously, I think our country deserves better than us just letting our President send our servicemen to fight and die, and just take his word that it’s the right thing to do. If we don’t question him, and probe into the issue with utmost scrutiny and dedication, we’re not doing our jobs as citizens.
And too many of us aren’t.
Rob
Let’s get something straight… the invasion of Iraq has yielded positive results; no one’s denying that. Trying to imply that being against the war means supporting Saddam’s regime is a facetious and unnecessarily loathsome tactic, not to mention tired and pathetic. The fact that Saddam is no longer in a position to perpetrate evil is a very good thing, and has been about the only laudable achievement to come out of our presence in Iraq.
That said, the removal of Saddam and the liberation of oppressed Iraqis have always been justifiable reasons to invade Iraq, but they were not the primary reasons given to the American public for invading! Yes, they were among the reasons given, but they were further down on the list, behind “weapons of mass destruction,” “terrorists poised to strike America,” and “links to 9/11.” If anything, the promotion of Iraqi freedom and removal of Saddam were more effects of the invasion than causes of it. Despite being the positive step for her people, Iraq’s ‘freedom’ feels more and more like an afterthought turned forethought by the day.
Remember back in February, before we invaded? All the attention being given to the possibility of Iraq’s WMDs and links to 9/11? Nobody was saying “we’re going in there to liberate Iraq,” they were saying “we’re going in there for the WMD; we’re preventing another 9/11.” Compassionate motivations like freeing the Iraqis from oppression were secondary motivations (at best), or marginalized as assumed benefits of a victory (at worst).
Today, it’s all about having caught Saddam and the fragile freedom we’ve created for Iraqis. There has been no smoking gun, despite many attempts to publicize very minor finds. I’m sorry, but two trailers where chemical weapons might have been made do not constitute a smoking gun. Neither do the second- and third-hand reports our substandard intelligence community has gathered about uranium being shipped through Africa or the reports of terrorist training camps. And the very tenuous links of meetings between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda are hardly smoking guns– al Qaeda’s been talking up countries and terrorist groups the world over. If we were to use communication with al Qaeda as a basis to determine whom we go to war with, we’d have to invade most of the Middle East!
Now, there are plenty of logically sound reasons for forcibly democratizing Iraq: control over oil supply, the grass-roots construction of an ally in a section of the world that hates America with a passion, and the removal of a ruthless dictator who shows no mercy for his own countrymen. But, dammit, sell the war to the public on the merits of those reasons, instead of playing a shell game with the hearts and minds of Americans! At worst, we were lied to outright. At best, we were told exaggerated truths. Perhaps the Bush administration thought that simple justice or a call to righteousness and reason weren’t enough of an impetus to sell the American public on a war with Iraq… understandably so, because then we’d have to declare war on every oppressive regime in the world. I don’t know, and that’s the essence of the problem: that we weren’t told the whole truth up front.
So yes, the invasion of Iraq is bearing positive fruit… but is it worth it in terms of the money, international prestige and lives spent? Is it worth the political strife on the homefront? Do our gains outweigh our losses, not just in the here and now but twenty years down the line? Maybe I’m just a pessimist, but for every positive I see three negatives. Only time will tell if it’s been worth it, and if it turns out there are WMDs or solid links to al Queda, I’ll happily eat crow. But I just don’t see it happening, especially given how the past nine months have gone down.
That OTHER John Byrne
Other nations have fascist regimes (Saudi Arabia), yet George W. Bush has shown no interest in them.
Only one nation is sitting on a tremendous reserve of oil, the annexation of which will benefit the United States (and American-based petroleum companies) for decades to come.
Actually, Saudi Arabia is sitting on a tremendous reserve of oil, the annexation of which yadda yadda yadda, so it doesn’t stand to reason that he singled out Iraq because it was the “only” one with oil. It also is false that there is “no interest” in North Korea. And I suppose time will tell whether we actually “annex” Iraq. Seems to me the big critique from Hillary Clinton and some others has been that we are cutting and running for political reasons.
Poor GW can’t seem to please his critics no matter what, so I guess he’ll have to just settle for being, you know, the president. Bummer.
regarding Osama:
Well, can you even tell me what we’re doing to find him?
Ummm…no. This is probably because I teach high school science and there would have to be something of a serious breakdown in protocol if I were to suddenly start getting top secret army intel. That being said, I will hazard a guess that they are doing pretty much what one has to do to capture a fugitive who neglects to make things easy by prancing around in the open desert wearing an orange turban or sitting on a street corner holding a sign that says “Will kill Jews for food”–you try to infiltrate the organization or flip captured members or intercept messages. More or less what was done to capture Saddam.
Since the Taliban still seems to be live and kicking, and according to recent reports, growing stronger, would it have been more accurate to say they ‘moved the Taliban?’ They seem to be moving back.
If the Taliban increases its strength by a hundredfold it will not equal what they had before–control of a country and the ability to channel its resources toward the propagation of international terrorism.
They will doubtlessly be a thorn in the side of the Afghani people for many years to come but I seriously doubt that they will ever again be in control.
Spike wrote:
And its laughable at how the word “unpatriotic” is thrown around when someone doesn’t agree with the war or Bush. We can be patriotic and we can support our troops or hope that they don’t get killed and can come home soon, but we don’t have to be blindly led by politicians trying to divert attention from their failures as leaders.
Oh geez… When will the Lefties of this country stop using this excuse that their patriotism is always being questioned? This is just some lame smokescreen perpetuated by the Left when people happen to disagree with their particular POV (“Oh, and how dare someone have a different perspective from our most righteous thoughts! Blah Blah Blah…”).
And lets not confuse things here. Often people are questioning the Left’s judgment and not their actual patriotism (of course, like I said above, the Left will cry wolf all night long to accuse people of this. Why? That’s all they know how to do these days. Bìŧçh bìŧçh bìŧçh… and play the blame game).
I can be a proud American but still be embarrassed of my Government officials.
And I hope you continue to be a proud American, but let go of the hate and open your mind some, huh? Many like you are just so blinded by your hatred.
Spike wrote:
Which have both not appeared or have been proven not true. We can’t just start a war. We had rules and procedures to follow. We are part of a world not just the United States.
And have you ever peeked over that safty blanket and noticed that the “world” often stands by way too often and ignores way too many things (or simply they’re looking out for their own self interests)? The end result of the removal of Saddam is a just cause and one that should be celebrated.
Yes we know Saddam was a bad man, but we know about the atrocities in China and North Korea and in other Mid Eastern countries, but we aren’t doing anything about them.
Surely you realize that each situation needs to be treated differently, eh? And sure, we could be doing a whole lot more to take down other inhumane evil dictators, but lets be real, we can’t do everything (and yes, our own self interests do play a part — HELLO! Like this is anything new for any country!). To me, to take down one evil regime is 100% better than sitting on the sidelines, diddling with ourself and doing nothing (cough cough — United Nations!.
Do you even know that we don’t count how many civilians are killed and we urged the “new” Iraqian government not to any more either ( we said the numbers are too varied and couldn’t be proven to be useful!! )
And where exactly are you getting that load of smelly propaganda BS? The same people that were feeding you this stuff before the war that at least 300,000 civillians would die by the US? I think the general consensus is that about a thousand Iraqi civillians have died and while that is tragic, just think of how many more would have died had Saddam been left in power. Gee, probably a thousand per week alone! And don’t forget, the US military did a fantastic job in minimizing the civillain casualties. It could have been a whole hëll of a lot worse (and hey, if the Russains had gone in, I’m sure that 300,000 civillain death count would have been accurate!).
There was a better way to get Saddam out of office, there was a safer way, and there was a legal way….we chose not to take any of those choices!
Um, you’re kidding right? I’ll assume you are talking about the UN way. Ha! If the UN had their way, we’d still be talking about the removal of Saddam in the year 2010! “Well, lets issue one more resolution, #2321, and see what happens.”
Spike wrote:
>>I can be a proud American but still be embarrassed of my Government officials.<<
And then Dennis wrote:
>>And I hope you continue to be a proud American, but let go of the hate and open your mind some, huh? Many like you are just so blinded by your hatred.<<
‘Scuse me? After your statement about how people on the left are always complaining that their patriotism is questioned, you go and twist Spike’s feelings from “embarassment” to “hate.” It seems to me there’s a big leap there, and Spike’s not the one making it.
Rob
the world is not black and white; the world is grays.
Whenever anyone says that I think they’re just trying to excuse their mistakes or sins, or @#$%-ups.
CJA
People that “supported” the war never wanna bring up the reason for the war..which was Weapons of Mass Destruction and the eminent danger facing us. Which have both not appeared or have been proven not true.
Tell that to the Kurds or Iranians that died because of the nonexistant WMD’s.
The UN resolutions called for Iraq to present and to destroy their WMD’s. But, instead of enforcing this resolution, the UN passed another resolution saying roughly the same thing. Good thing we have the UN to issue resolutions, because that seems to be about all they are good for. Unless you count taking up large amount of prime real estate in NYC.
Daremo posted:
\\There was a former president that went to war after talks failed, and the original reason for going to war was lost upon those that were affected, on both sides, as the war was fought. The president never made an official change of policy, that I know of, but the reason for the war being fought changed.
The American Civil War. The original reason for the north to go against the south was to preserve the union, but later changed to freeing the slaves. Funny how history has a way of repeating itself. The results are still the same, no matter how you argue about the why. I’m not saying that the ends justify the means, I’m saying that arguing the “why” of it, doesn’t change the fact that what’s done is done. If it was to find WMD, or preserve the union, but ended up being to stop the cruelty of a tyrant committing attrocities against HUMAN KIND, or to free the slaves, the end is the same.\\
Sorry, but Lincoln did not make the War’s goal the liberation of slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation, delivered some 16 months after the “official” beginning of the War, was done with only one goal in mind: To force the Confederacy’s main trading partners, Britain and France, to cease their economic ties with the CSA. You see, Britain and France had both ended slavery, not merely the importation of slaves, but also the practice itself, within the confines of their empires. Lincoln hoped that by turning the Civil War into a “war against slavery” that the two anti-slavery economic powers would be embarrassed in trading with a pro-slavery nation. In that, he succeeded.
However, the Emancipation Proclamation (read the full document here: http://www.usconstitution.net/eman.html) specifically EXCLUDED slave-holding territories under Union control–this included the Union “slave states” (Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and Delaware) as well as all Union-army occupied territory (several Louisiana parishes and Virginia counties are listed by name). Slavery was only “ended” by the Proclamation in territory still controlled by the CSA after January 1, 1863 which effectively meant that even when Lee surrendered to Grant in 1865, there were still millions of square miles of CSA territory in which slavery was still practiced and in which not one slave’s life was made any easier.
People that “supported” the war never wanna bring up the reason for the war..which was Weapons of Mass Destruction and the eminent danger facing us.
Actually, the word is “imminent” and no American President has ever said verbatim that Iraq poses an imminent threat. The notion was that we should prevent Iraq from becoming an imminent threat. (Personally that sounds like a wise policy but I don’t believe that we’ve covered all of our bases). I support the war. I supported the start of the war. I’ll remind you that not only was a confirmation and removal of weapons of mass destruction a reason for the war, but the removal of totalitarian regime was also a reason given. Honestly, that reason wasn’t rendered retroactively. Unseating that government was a reason given, searching for and neutralizing chemical and biological weapons was a reason given, and removing a threat that intended to become imminent were all reasons given, as well as others. It’s dishonest to pretend that there were only two reasons, especially when you can’t get one of them right.
We had rules and procedures to follow. We are part of a world not just the United States.
None (not one) of those rules and procedures requires the United States to gain permission from any other part of the world to engage in war.
There was a better way to get Saddam out of office, there was a safer way, and there was a legal way….we chose not to take any of those choices!
Name those three choices. Please. I want to hear them. I want to read right here what Time magazine and the National Review refused to tell me. (Is now a good time to point out that Saddam wasn’t “in office” so much as he was permanently embedded until death)?
You’re right. Nothing changed. Which means we broke internaional law and invaded a country illegally!
Which international law? Which one? Find me chapter and verse.
killed and destroyed with out the support or the vote of the UN
The United Nations holds no authority over our nation or its military or our choice of military force.
then ask them for money in rebuilding what we destroyed and seek to block them from any rebuilding contracts because they didn’t help destroy what we did
They refuse to help when we ask, a refusal that hurts the Iraqi people far more than it hurts us, I reckon. That’s on their heads.
Our blocking certain nations from benefiting financially from our war is certainly within our rights, and by no means is it a blanket directive towards the entirety of the member nations within the UN.
his “War on Terror”, which, while it has yeilded some results, can be taken care of under the reign of another president
I don’t believe that the leading Democrats actually care to push forward the War on Terror. Lieberman might but he’s too far from winning the Democratic Primary. Dean is outright against these various wars. Clark keeps flip-flopping. Every election is the lesser of two evils…. I don’t believe that the viable Democratic candidates have the appropriate views regarding American foreign policy.
I don’t know anyone who isn’t happy that Saddam Hussein has been captured. That he was an evil, brutal tyrant who committed horrific crimes against his own people is a fact beyond reproach.
That person isn’t and shouldn’t be held as a representative of any group but it is an example of how people can be just evil.
That said, I remain as skeptical today as I was last week that democracy can be “imposed” on a country like Iraq from the outside. That’s a valid concern.
According to the book, The Third Wave, by Samuel P. Huntington, democratization is established most effectively through economic means and through the establishment of a working free market society. Unfortunately that can’t always be protected in its nascent form without outside support. West Germany and Japan became democracies only through the support that we are attempting to render in Iraq.
I fear that, as he did in Afghanistan, Bush will simply declare victory (“Mission Accomplish”)
That banner was a declaration made by the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln and for them it was true. The President declared “major combat operations” to be over, but he never declared the mission to be accomplished, at least not for our entire nation or the entire military.
I fear that, as he did in Afghanistan, Bush will simply declare victory (“Mission Accomplish”) and and ignore the problem as the country slides into anarchy.
Which is why we should never pull out too early.
I’m still amazed der fuhrer Bush didn’t just keep Hussein under strict supervision till say…
Comparing our President to Hitler is so immature I’m embarrassed to be reading this.
George W. Bush told us that we needed to go to war with Iraq because the Iraqis were living under a fascist regime, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, and Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ther nations have fascist regimes (Saudi Arabia), yet George W. Bush has shown no interest in them. Other nations have brutal dictators (the Congo), yet George W. Bush has shown no interest in them. Other nations have weapons of mass destruction (North Korea), yet George W. Bush has shown no interest in them.
I think he should show more interest in those countries as well. I agree.
Only one nation is sitting on a tremendous reserve of oil, the annexation of which will benefit the United States (and American-based petroleum companies) for decades to come.
I’m not sure if there’s enough oil in that country to actually profit, given how much capital that’s already been spent on this war. From what I’ve heard we cannot benefit monetarily from the oil situation just because we don’t have…. the numbers just won’t balance out.
I would think that anyone who was willing to believe Bush when he said that there were WMDs in Iraq (which, as far as I know, the President still believes) would be mighty worried right now.
I am. I think that they’re been smuggled into Syria.
The argument could well be made that we tossed aside a chance–at a time when the world sympathized with us–to create a genuine world coalition to not only do away with terrorism, but the circumstances which foster terrorism.
The world was never that much in love with us. Read this. “The goodwill America earned on 9/11 was illusory. Get over it” Alright, that is only the subtitle.
“It is pure fiction that this pro-American sentiment was either squandered after Sept. 11 or lost under the Bush Administration. It never existed. Envy for America, resentment of our power, hatred of our success has been a staple for decades, but most particularly since victory in the cold war left us the only superpower.”
We squandered nothing; it wasn’t there. We had no sympathy that could be used as leverage to make the world free of terrorism. Heck, I want to know what can give us sympathy enough to leverage that kind of event.
CJA
PS – We did indeed finally find WMD — Saddam Hussein!
(quote) The UN resolutions called for Iraq to present and to destroy their WMD’s. But, instead of enforcing this resolution, the UN passed another resolution saying roughly the same thing. Good thing we have the UN to issue resolutions, because that seems to be about all they are good for. Unless you count taking up large amount of prime real estate in NYC. (unquote)
Sigh.
Let us not ignore, please, UNESCO, WHO, UNICEF, many successful peace-keeping operations, uncountable health services, aid to refugees, and on and on.
Yes, the Security Council does issue resolutions. And yes, by some lights, Iraq did not fully comply with or ignored many. As have many other countries against whom resolutions have been passed (the U.S. included among those so singled out).
By all means, the U.N. is not perfect nor a solution to every ill – but it is the best the international community has been able to hold together, and its good works should not be slighted. By its very existence, it has served to tamp down, if not quell altogether, some flare-ups that threatened to escalate well beyond their initial outbreaks.
Oh, and by the way, the 18 acres the U.N. covers is not legally a part of NYC, nor a part of the U.S. – it is a legally emancipated international area belonging to no country – with its own postal service and other independently-administered services, and with some other services contracted to or provided by the host nation, which has the option in some circumstances to bill for services rendered.
A couple of youse guys need to go get laid.
The UN resolutions called for Iraq to present and to destroy their WMD’s. But, instead of enforcing this resolution, the UN passed another resolution saying roughly the same thing. Good thing we have the UN to issue resolutions, because that seems to be about all they are good for. Unless you count taking up large amount of prime real estate in NYC.
Ummm, well, based on the fact that we’ve been there nine months and haven’t found any WMD ourselves, has it ocurred to anybodyelse that maybe Saddam didn’t “present and destroy” his WMD simply because he didn’t have any?
Now I’ve got no love for Saddam, but UN bashing has gotten out of hand. Remeber, up until last March we were part of this group that was “good for nothing but passing resolutions”, and if it hadn’t been for 9/11 I’m sure we’d still just be passing resolutions. I wonder what would have happened if instead of the World Trade Center, two planes crashed into the Moscow and the Russians suddenly wanted to invade Iraq without UN support. Do you think the US would have sat still for that? All we’ve doing is enforcing the world view that the US does what it wants, when it wants, and screw anybody that opposes us or has a different piont of view. This is not the path to world peace and harmony.
Russell wrote:
All we’ve doing is enforcing the world view that the US does what it wants, when it wants, and screw anybody that opposes us or has a different piont of view. This is not the path to world peace and harmony.
Can’t say I agree. Often it seems no matter what the US does we’re still going to be criticized. People are always going to be jealous of the US’s power and the best country in the world (and I’m saying we’re perfect by any means).
As for achieving “world peace and harmony,” well, this is one lofty goal. But taking out Saddam is one step, even if it’s a small one, in that direction. Also, at the end of the day, it’s the United States that needs to look out for themselves. We cannot count on so-called allies such as France (who was pretty much solely responsible for the UN mess) because they have their own self interests to look after (like wanting to have Saddam pay them the money they’re owed for all of those illegal arms they’ve been selling them!).
Alan Coil suggested:
A couple of youse guys need to go get laid.
Wooo! I hope you’re going to spring for the chicks since you brought it up. And, just make sure to send them my way — you know, down to my parents basement where I’m sittin’ and wearin’ a dingy bathrobe and listening to the soundtrack to Star Wars! Snork snork! And if you’re so kind in complying, in return, I’ll let you get some sloppy thirds! Lord knows you probably need to get some too! Snork snork! Hey, can I borrow your Lord of the Rings soundtrack?
Dennis: Oh geez… When will the Lefties of this country stop using this excuse that their patriotism is always being questioned?
Luigi Novi: It is not an excuse. It is something that is actually happening.
Dennis: This is just some lame smokescreen perpetuated by the Left when people happen to disagree with their particular POV (“Oh, and how dare someone have a different perspective from our most righteous thoughts! Blah Blah Blah…”).
Luigi Novi: No, you have it the other way around. It is those who criticize dissenters and protestors for the mere act of dissenting who act as if they are traitors for having a different perspective.
Dennis: And lets not confuse things here. Often people are questioning the Left’s judgment and not their actual patriotism
Luigi Novi: Perhaps. But often, they are in fact questioning their patriotism.
Spike: I can be a proud American but still be embarrassed of my Government officials.
Dennis: And I hope you continue to be a proud American, but let go of the hate and open your mind some, huh? Many like you are just so blinded by your hatred.
Luigi Novi: Thank you for disproving your own point. Someone asserted that he can love his country while still disagreeing with his government, and somehow you turned this into “hatred.” So anyone who disagrees with the war or the government is filled with “hatred.”
Spike: People that “supported” the war never wanna bring up the reason for the war..which was Weapons of Mass Destruction and the eminent danger facing us. Which have both not appeared or have been proven not true.
Jeff: Tell that to the Kurds or Iranians that died because of the nonexistant WMD’s.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, he used gas on them that we gave him. I thought WMD’s referring to biological and nuclear weapons.
Bladestar: I’m still amazed der fuhrer Bush didn’t just keep Hussein under strict supervision till say…
The Blue Spider: Comparing our President to Hitler is so immature I’m embarrassed to be reading this.
Luigi Novi: I agree. A friend of my sister once made this comparison at the dinner table, and I thought she was total fûçkìņg idiot for doing so. I am so sick and tired of people using the words “Nazi” or “Hitler” to describe anyone they don’t like, without any modicum of common sense, without any sense of scale of what Hitler actually did. It’s a cheap shot. It’s like using a fat joke in the middle of a debate with an overweight person.
Charles Krauthammer (at the page linked to by The Blue Spider on 12/16/2003 11:25 PM): Bill Clinton was the most accommodating, sensitive, multilateralist President one can imagine, and yet we know that al-Qaeda began the planning for Sept. 11 precisely during his presidency.
Luigi Novi: Precisely during his presidency? Wow, so the fact that he began doing something during an eight-year period in which the U.S. was presided over by a particular President isn’t incidental, but an act of precision? Pass the fûçkìņg shovel. Bin Laden’s animus toward the U.S. began when Saudi Arabia allowed us to use their soil during the first Gulf War, which occurred under the first Bush administration, not Clinton’s, and this despite the fact that we helped bin Laden during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.
Bin Laden did what he did and when he did because of something for which the U.S. had every right to do, and was not at fault for, something bin Laden decided was some type of crime. Bush should not be blamed for this, and neither should Clinton.
Charles Krauthammer: Clinton made humility his vocation, apologizing variously for African slavery, for internment of Japanese Americans, for not saving Rwanda. He even decided that Britain should return the Elgin Marbles to Greece. A lot of good that did us. Bin Laden issued his Declaration of War on America in 1996–at the height of the Clinton Administration’s hyperapologetic, good-citizen internationalism.
Luigi Novi: What a bunch of utter horseshit. “Clinton admitted some of the mistakes that the U.S. had committed, so that means that’s why bin Laden chose to attack.” What a mentally retarded non sequitur.
Even dumber is that a bit lower down in that very same piece, Krauthammer states:
“We are widely reviled as enemies of Islam, yet in the 1990s we engaged three times in combat — in the Persian Gulf and in the Balkans — to rescue Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo, Muslim peoples all. And in the last two cases, there was nothing in it for the U.S.; it was humanitarianism and good international citizenship of the highest order.”
So Krauthammer first says that Clinton was our most accommodating President, whose humility he all but blames for 9/11, then later, to rebuff critics who say that we are enemies of Islam, points out that we went to war three times for humanitarian reasons to aid Muslims, even though two of those were under Clinton? What a deluded ypocrite.
When I first heard about the capture, I was thrilled. The Irais wouldn’t have to be afraid anymore… they might finally truly feel free. Then my brain kicked in, and I got to thinking.
Being a college student who has his own place, I realized something. Freedom is a very dangerous thing. When I first moved into the apartment, I was reckless. I had loud late night parties, or stayed up late watching TV, I rarely if ever cleaned the place, my grades slipped a bit, on days without classes I didn’t always wear pants…. in other words, I screwed up big time. Then I got to thinking, it’s been twenty years since these people have had much political freedom. What if they screw up? Not just as indviduals, but as a country? I’m pretty sure it’d be a lot more serious than not wearing pants.
Oh geez… When will the Lefties of this country stop using this excuse that their patriotism is always being questioned? This is just some lame smokescreen perpetuated by the Left when people happen to disagree with their particular POV (“Oh, and how dare someone have a different perspective from our most righteous thoughts! Blah Blah Blah…”).
I don’t think the “left” hides behind that smokescreen you keep talking about. Hëll your supposed to have a differing veiwpoint from me, your a different person. I’ve got questions of my own… Why does the “Right” hide behind “patriotism” and the presidents decision all the time?
Why can’t the “Right” question the actions of other members of the “right”? Why do they see the “left” as a blanket opposition,
while it is much more fragmented than the “right” is? Why do many of the “right” constantly attack not the veiws but the veiwmakers?Why does the “right” equate capitalism to democratic republic? Why doesn’t the “right” acknowledge the connections between large corporations and the government that are so apparent?
Please will somebody among the “right” please respond with logical answers… and not with fallacious comments like “Since you opposed the invasion, shouldn’t you demand that hussein be restored to power?”
• 
Indeed.
Sadly, you’re right about most Americans only thinking “we caught a bad guy! Re-elect Bush!”.
People who think like that make me (an American) think that a good portion of our contry is made up of useless sacks of flesh with all the intellectual capacity of decomosing roadkill.
Sadly, you’re right about most Americans only thinking “we caught a bad guy! Re-elect Bush!”.
Funny, on this very blog, someone was saying that the Bush administration would try to cover up its “failure” by saying that Saddam wasn’t that important. No you guys are.
People who think like that make me (an American) think that a good portion of our contry is made up of useless sacks of flesh with all the intellectual capacity of decomosing roadkill.
And people wonder why the left has no popularity.
To paraphrase Joe Lieberman, if it had been up to Peter David, Hussein would still be in power. You might not call that support, but he wouldn’t have cared. Since you opposed the invasion, shouldn’t you demand that hussein be restored to power?
To paraphrase Joe Lieberman, if it had been up to Peter David, Hussein would still be in power.
Noooo. If it were “up to Peter David,” Saddam would be out of power, along with every other despot and bášŧárd currently hurting citizens in this world.
But the world is not black and white; the world is grays. The argument could well be made that we made Saddam superflous because we proved that we could kill innocent Iraqis just as well, if not better, than he. The argument could well be made that we tossed aside a chance–at a time when the world sympathized with us–to create a genuine world coalition to not only do away with terrorism, but the circumstances which foster terrorism. Instead we confirmed the words of every terrorist propagandist who ever depicted the United States as an unreasonable, military-driven, conquering country. That we accomplished the short-term goal of stopping a (non-existent) threat to the United States with the long-term result of exacerbating the overall problem of terrorism.
Instead the argument boils down to, “If you see any grays, any shadings, any downsides, then you would rather Saddam were in power.”
Which is bûllšhìŧ.
PAD
Since you opposed the invasion, shouldn’t you demand that hussein be restored to power?
Bûllšhìŧ. Utter bûllšhìŧ. That’s the equivalent of saying: “Because you were so anti-Clinton, shouldn’t you decline to accept the profits you made off your stocks during his tenure.”
I was anti-invasion because a) Dubya didn’t convince me why we were doing it, b) as it went along, the reasons why kept on changing, c) we still hadn’t (and haven’t) cleaned up our mess in Afgahnistan and d) I knew we did not have a clear exit plan.
Travis
Excellent news that the tyrant has been caught. I just hope all the aftermath doesn’t get caught up in too much beaurocratic red tape,
Where do we hold a trial ?
When do we hold a trial?
How long will the trial last?
What do we do with him then?
Pros & cons of the death penalty?
It will probably cost more money to put the bášŧárd on trial than the whole war did and the paparazzi will make shitloads of money from selling all the photos of court case. It makes me sick to realise just how much money some people are making out of other peoples misery.
Now one deranged dictator is out of the way lets see if we can get put bin-laden out the picture as well.
People that “supported” the war never wanna bring up the reason for the war..which was Weapons of Mass Destruction and the eminent danger facing us. Which have both not appeared or have been proven not true. We can’t just start a war. We had rules and procedures to follow. We are part of a world not just the United States. Yes we know Saddam was a bad man, but we know about the atrocities in China and North Korea and in other Mid Eastern countries, but we aren’t doing anything about them. No, Saddam was just an easy target to get people thinking we were doing something, even though there was no evidence linking him to the “war on terror” or of WMD. People read headlines but never the actual context. Do you even know that we don’t count how many civilians are killed and we urged the “new” Iraqian government not to any more either ( we said the numbers are too varied and couldn’t be proven to be useful!! )
There was a better way to get Saddam out of office, there was a safer way, and there was a legal way….we chose not to take any of those choices!
And its laughable at how the word “unpatriotic” is thrown around when someone doesn’t agree with the war or Bush. We can be patriotic and we can support our troops or hope that they don’t get killed and can come home soon, but we don’t have to be blindly led by politicians trying to divert attention from their failures as leaders. I can be a proud American but still be embarrassed of my Government officials.
I direct everyone to a speech made by President Bush on 1/28/2003: his State of the Union Address.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
I direct people there because of one simple point. Our overall objectives in Iraq, from the first day Bush spoke of them in a speech, have NEVER changed.
Yes, one objective was to locate and destroy WMDs, some that the UN concluded Saddam Hussein had.
But right in his Address, the president said that liberation of Iraq, and a toppling of Saddam’s regime was another goal.
There was no change of the objectives, as so many people think. I have heard said “well, he can’t find WMDs, so now we are there to liberate Iraq”.
Read the words he spoke earlier this year.
Nothing changed.
“Funny, on this very blog, someone was saying that the Bush administration would try to cover up its “failure” by saying that Saddam wasn’t that important. No you guys are.”
While it’s foolish to be critical of someone for agreeing with you, it’s not as foolish to question one’s motivation for doing so, though it is a much trickier proposition.
I think the allegation was that Bush would have put forth the manhunt and if it failed, would have declared Hussein unimportant despite all the money and man-hours put into finding him.
Of course, there was almost no chance of it failing, since Hussein was probably the second most wanted man in the world. Even his nearest and dearest would see the price on his head before they saw his face. Saddam had nobody to trust, and the man is frankly too used to the high life to take easily to living in caves. I’m sure he turned himself in or was caught pretty quickly after the official report was made that he had left Baghdad (if not before), just as I’m sure he’s going to be holed up in Guantanamo Bay until the US Citizenry forgets about him like we did Manuel Noriega, and he’ll retire to the south of France with a new face.
Well, wolfknight, he actually said no such thing about liberation being a goal in that address (he did say that such would be an outcome of the end of Hussein’s regime, by any that accompished that removal).
He did not say that removal of the regime was a goal in that address – he did say it was a desirable outcome and policy, but pointed explicitly to disarming the regime as the goal.
Here is the direct quote:
“…we will lead a coalition to disarm him.”
The only reference to the U.N. conclusion of WMD referred to a 1999 report, and those items, and various discrepancies in absolute numbers between then and now have been accounted for.
Have no illusions about changing your views, but what you posit simply is not included in the text of the address you cite.
“Noooo. If it were “up to Peter David,” Saddam would be out of power, along with every other despot and bášŧárd currently hurting citizens in this world.”
“up to Peter David” isn’t really expressing the thought correctly as I percieve it. If you’d had your druthers in the world theatre, we never would have entered Iraq, thus had it been “up to you” Hussein, due to a lack of American invasion, would still be in power.
I sympathize with your ideal world, but there’s no need to ride somebody for poor use of grammar.
Unless you’re going to start doing it all the time, in which case, I can fully get behind that.
I think The Wisdom of Solomon summed it up best: “Though living through great unrest, due to ignorance they do call such tremendous evils, peace.”
You’re right. Nothing changed. Which means we broke internaional law and invaded a country illegally! We killed and destroyed with out the support or the vote of the UN, but then ask them for money in rebuilding what we destroyed and seek to block them from any rebuilding contracts because they didn’t help destroy what we did. Good Grief!
I don’t know anyone who isn’t happy that Saddam Hussein has been captured. That he was an evil, brutal tyrant who committed horrific crimes against his own people is a fact beyond reproach.
It is my hope that now that he has been permanently removed from power, the Iraqi people may be more willing to help us fight the guerrilla forces remaining in Iraq without fear of retaliation if Saddam returns to power. Now that he is thoroughly beaten and humiliated, the Iraqi people should have no reason to fear him anymore.
That said, I remain as skeptical today as I was last week that democracy can be “imposed” on a country like Iraq from the outside. I fear that, as he did in Afghanistan, Bush will simply declare victory (“Mission Accomplish”) and and ignore the problem as the country slides into anarchy. I fear that a new dictator will simply rise to power the moment our troops pull out of Baghdad. We’ve got the devil we know, but what if the next devil is even worse?
I also resent that Osama bin Laden remains a free man and that had we put as determined a manhunt to find him as we did to find Hussein, he’d be in Getmo by now.
Actually, I was a Bush supporter originally, and am still more conservative than I am liberal. What I ment by “I hate people who think like that” was that many people will immediately praise Bush for the successful capture of Saddam, when he had little to nothing to do with the military operation that ended in Hussein being captured.
I’m probably going to vote Democrat in the next election, simply because of how fantastically fûçkëd this country has become under the idiot son of an áššhølë. I thought for awhile that a Republican president would do the country some good. Instead, there are high unemployment rates and our soldiers are dying every day in Iraq. Hëll, I supported the war, and I think that the follow up has been piss-poor.
I’m worried that the morons of this country will re-elect Bush simply because of his “War on Terror”, which, while it has yeilded some results, can be taken care of under the reign of another president.
Meanwhile, who wants cookies?
I’m still amazed der fuhrer Bush didn’t just keep Hussein under strict supervision till say… July or August of 2004, (i.e. Just before the election) and THEN bring him in…).
Osama is still free, and there are still millions of Americans out of work and sufferings, seeing no benefit for the so-called “improving economy”.
I’d love to see the numbers on this x-mas shopping season and see how many people actually had the money they spent on x-mas presents and how many just charged up the credit cards even further with no way to pay them off in the immediate future….
I still hate Bush and won’t vote for in 2004 until he shows himself to be remotely human…
O.k., so here’s a theory that my dentist floated to me a few months ago. Osama bin-Laden (OBL) comes from an oil family right-export that oil. So my dentist thought that OBL isn’t anywhere on land, he’s on a boat, more specifically, an oil tanker of his family’s. He’s floating around the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian-who knows?
He’s managing the Taliban from there and is completely mobile and near impossible to find in the vastness of the world’s oceans.
Just something to make you go “hmmmm.”
-tpl
I also resent that Osama bin Laden remains a free man and that had we put as determined a manhunt to find him as we did to find Hussein, he’d be in Getmo by now
Really? I find that almost magical thinking. The fact is, we were told where to find Saddam and even then they almost missed him. It may well come out that US soldiers have walked over several “spider holes” in the last 6 months.
Finding Osama is pretty much a needle in the haystack situation, and we don’t even know which farm has the haystack. I’ve read some very good pundits who claimed that evidence suggested he was in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Or somewhere else. We can probably rule out the Arctic Circle and the Pearl Islands–and the latter only because if he HAD been there Rupert would have killed him (Wouldn’t that have been GREAT?).
The argument could well be made that we tossed aside a chance–at a time when the world sympathized with us–to create a genuine world coalition to not only do away with terrorism, but the circumstances which foster terrorism.
I think the idea that the whole world was ready to do what needed to be done and the opportunity was lost by the perfidious Bush is a lovely story but not much grounded in reality. As a wise man once said:
The French will always do exactly the opposite on what the United States wants regardless of what happens, so we’re never going to have a consistent policy,” – Howard Dean, 1998,
“as it went along, the reasons why kept on changing” Travis
There was a former president that went to war after talks failed, and the original reason for going to war was lost upon those that were affected, on both sides, as the war was fought. The president never made an official change of policy, that I know of, but the reason for the war being fought changed.
The American Civil War. The original reason for the north to go against the south was to preserve the union, but later changed to freeing the slaves. Funny how history has a way of repeating itself. The results are still the same, no matter how you argue about the why. I’m not saying that the ends justify the means, I’m saying that arguing the “why” of it, doesn’t change the fact that what’s done is done. If it was to find WMD, or preserve the union, but ended up being to stop the cruelty of a tyrant committing attrocities against HUMAN KIND, or to free the slaves, the end is the same.
Maybe the WMD have not been found, but just because they haven’t been found doesn’t mean they don’t still exist. I’ve never seen God, but I know he exists.
Why don’t we invade North Korea or any other place that is giving us a problem and the leaders are ruling with an Iron Hand? 1) Give us time, we only have so many people in the military since it is strictly a volunteer force at this point. 2) Please refer to the current issues of FF by Mark Waid, the Authoritative Action story.
Domo
Ahhh! So this war is as important as the Civil War was.
That makes no sense, you realize that right, you can comprehend that you just attempted to make a link at least as bad as Saddam=9/11, right?
I missed the part right before the Civil War where the North had inspectors in the south and other countries were helping out.
Must have been sick that day.
1. I’m thrilled for the Iraqi people and for US and UK servicemen and women that Hussein has been caught. Assuming he’s brought to trial in accord with the highest standards of international justice and with the full participation of the emerging post-Hussein Iraqi state, there’s nothing to say about this per se other than: “Huzzah, Huzzah, Huzzah!”
2. I do hope that many citizens of the US–including its current Administration– are prepared to accept the lessons and facts of history that may emerge out of that trial, namely our tacit and explicit approval of the man and his brutality, including his use of weapons of mass destruction, throughout the 1980s. Let’s understand how we got here, by all means, now that we’ve begun to make right of the situation.
3) I don’t feel one dámņ bit safer from terrorist or state-sponsored terrorist attack now that he’s in custody. I don’t know anyone who does. I don’t know anyone who would if even Osma bin Laden were to be captured. Have we drained the swamp? Have we truly even started to do so? Or have we reduced an incredibly complex international situation that took decades to create and will take decades to undo down to two or three super-villians and their henchmen? For every former dictator or fundamentalist mullah we’ve taken down, I can give you handfuls of Afghani or Iraqui children killed by bombs gone awry. More to the point, I give you all their surviving relatives, all their neighbors, and more super-villians ready to step in and exploit their hate.
Does having Hussein mean it gets easier to drain the swamp, now? Does it mean we’ve even come to understand what we need to do? Or does it mean we declare victory (again) and start packing even faster?
4) Remember the Maine. Revisionist history about the causes for war can be performed by everyone. I’m waiting for the soundbite along the lines of “We said we were going in to end his reign of terror and get ‘im, and we’ve done just that.” Or did I miss that one, already? Rove’s no fool, after all, and it scans well….
Should Saddam be killed or imprisoned for the rest of his life? I feel if we put Saddam to court and exacute him we will be know better then Saddam himself.
I happened to catch an interview with the White House Communications director on CNN earlier, and he mentioned that one of the great accomplishments of this presidency was the removal of the Taliban. Since the Taliban still seems to be live and kicking, and according to recent reports, growing stronger, would it have been more accurate to say they ‘moved the Taliban?’ They seem to be moving back.
Yeah, really, Joe. Not only is Osama at large, but no one seems to be talking about the fact that Mullah Omar, the actual leader of the Taliban, is still at large too.
I guess I see a different issues here. Saddam has been out of power for quite a period of time, yet there are still people dying in Iraq. Shouldn’t that be focused on. Who really cares if one individual is in or out of power if the same thing is still happening in a different way.
Terrorists will always exist they can’t be illiminated. The things that are being done to create them should be the focus of change. If it is reasonable possible to take away their reason for fighting you, then you have no worries. So Saddam was caught, what has changed?
Really? I find that almost magical thinking. The fact is, we were told where to find Saddam and even then they almost missed him. It may well come out that US soldiers have walked over several “spider holes” in the last 6 months
Well, can you even tell me what we’re doing to find him?
How about remembering the last time his name even crossed George “We’re going to get him dead or alive” Bush’s lips?
I’m not too sure Bush getting re-elected is as simple as this war, or capturing Saddam or Bin Laden. I am a teacher and I don’t know how things are on the coasts but in the midwest, I cannot think of one teacher (or anyone in education for that matter) who is going to vote for Bush as long as he and his administration are backing this “No Child Left Behind” bûllšhìŧ. I don’t know if any of you have read up on it, but it is basically demanding a 100% pass/success rate of All students in all schools. This includes BD / LD / kids of parents who don’t give a šhìŧ about their education and don’t care if they never turn in ANY homework.
That would be like telling him (Bush) – go ahead and fight your war in Iraq – but NO ONE – not one soldier – can die or get injured. The odds of that happening are about the same as the odds of a 100% success rate for all children. Although I voted for him in the last election – unless Satan himself is running against Bush – he does not have my vote.
Cribbed from another user somewhere on the internet…
George W. Bush told us that we needed to go to war with Iraq because the Iraqis were living under a fascist regime, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, and Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Other nations have fascist regimes (Saudi Arabia), yet George W. Bush has shown no interest in them.
Other nations have brutal dictators (the Congo), yet George W. Bush has shown no interest in them.
Other nations have weapons of mass destruction (North Korea), yet George W. Bush has shown no interest in them.
Other nations have fascist regimes, brutal dictators, and weapons of mass destruction (Pakistan), yet George W. Bush has shown no interest in them.
Only one nation is sitting on a tremendous reserve of oil, the annexation of which will benefit the United States (and American-based petroleum companies) for decades to come.
George W. Bush has shown a lot of interest in that country, hasn’t he?
You know, I still can’t quite figure out why Bush continues to get a pass from so many on the missing WMDs. If they do exist, then they’re still located somewhere in a nation that currently experiencing a US caused power vaccum that’s become a mecca of sorts for anti-American insurgents.
I would think that anyone who was willing to believe Bush when he said that there were WMDs in Iraq (which, as far as I know, the President still believes) would be mighty worried right now.
Daremo wrote:
>>Maybe the WMD have not been found, but just because they haven’t been found doesn’t mean they don’t still exist. I’ve never seen God, but I know he exists.<<
Maybe He has the WMDs.
Seriously, I think our country deserves better than us just letting our President send our servicemen to fight and die, and just take his word that it’s the right thing to do. If we don’t question him, and probe into the issue with utmost scrutiny and dedication, we’re not doing our jobs as citizens.
And too many of us aren’t.
Rob
Let’s get something straight… the invasion of Iraq has yielded positive results; no one’s denying that. Trying to imply that being against the war means supporting Saddam’s regime is a facetious and unnecessarily loathsome tactic, not to mention tired and pathetic. The fact that Saddam is no longer in a position to perpetrate evil is a very good thing, and has been about the only laudable achievement to come out of our presence in Iraq.
That said, the removal of Saddam and the liberation of oppressed Iraqis have always been justifiable reasons to invade Iraq, but they were not the primary reasons given to the American public for invading! Yes, they were among the reasons given, but they were further down on the list, behind “weapons of mass destruction,” “terrorists poised to strike America,” and “links to 9/11.” If anything, the promotion of Iraqi freedom and removal of Saddam were more effects of the invasion than causes of it. Despite being the positive step for her people, Iraq’s ‘freedom’ feels more and more like an afterthought turned forethought by the day.
Remember back in February, before we invaded? All the attention being given to the possibility of Iraq’s WMDs and links to 9/11? Nobody was saying “we’re going in there to liberate Iraq,” they were saying “we’re going in there for the WMD; we’re preventing another 9/11.” Compassionate motivations like freeing the Iraqis from oppression were secondary motivations (at best), or marginalized as assumed benefits of a victory (at worst).
Today, it’s all about having caught Saddam and the fragile freedom we’ve created for Iraqis. There has been no smoking gun, despite many attempts to publicize very minor finds. I’m sorry, but two trailers where chemical weapons might have been made do not constitute a smoking gun. Neither do the second- and third-hand reports our substandard intelligence community has gathered about uranium being shipped through Africa or the reports of terrorist training camps. And the very tenuous links of meetings between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda are hardly smoking guns– al Qaeda’s been talking up countries and terrorist groups the world over. If we were to use communication with al Qaeda as a basis to determine whom we go to war with, we’d have to invade most of the Middle East!
Now, there are plenty of logically sound reasons for forcibly democratizing Iraq: control over oil supply, the grass-roots construction of an ally in a section of the world that hates America with a passion, and the removal of a ruthless dictator who shows no mercy for his own countrymen. But, dammit, sell the war to the public on the merits of those reasons, instead of playing a shell game with the hearts and minds of Americans! At worst, we were lied to outright. At best, we were told exaggerated truths. Perhaps the Bush administration thought that simple justice or a call to righteousness and reason weren’t enough of an impetus to sell the American public on a war with Iraq… understandably so, because then we’d have to declare war on every oppressive regime in the world. I don’t know, and that’s the essence of the problem: that we weren’t told the whole truth up front.
So yes, the invasion of Iraq is bearing positive fruit… but is it worth it in terms of the money, international prestige and lives spent? Is it worth the political strife on the homefront? Do our gains outweigh our losses, not just in the here and now but twenty years down the line? Maybe I’m just a pessimist, but for every positive I see three negatives. Only time will tell if it’s been worth it, and if it turns out there are WMDs or solid links to al Queda, I’ll happily eat crow. But I just don’t see it happening, especially given how the past nine months have gone down.
That OTHER John Byrne
Other nations have fascist regimes (Saudi Arabia), yet George W. Bush has shown no interest in them.
Only one nation is sitting on a tremendous reserve of oil, the annexation of which will benefit the United States (and American-based petroleum companies) for decades to come.
Actually, Saudi Arabia is sitting on a tremendous reserve of oil, the annexation of which yadda yadda yadda, so it doesn’t stand to reason that he singled out Iraq because it was the “only” one with oil. It also is false that there is “no interest” in North Korea. And I suppose time will tell whether we actually “annex” Iraq. Seems to me the big critique from Hillary Clinton and some others has been that we are cutting and running for political reasons.
Poor GW can’t seem to please his critics no matter what, so I guess he’ll have to just settle for being, you know, the president. Bummer.
regarding Osama:
Well, can you even tell me what we’re doing to find him?
Ummm…no. This is probably because I teach high school science and there would have to be something of a serious breakdown in protocol if I were to suddenly start getting top secret army intel. That being said, I will hazard a guess that they are doing pretty much what one has to do to capture a fugitive who neglects to make things easy by prancing around in the open desert wearing an orange turban or sitting on a street corner holding a sign that says “Will kill Jews for food”–you try to infiltrate the organization or flip captured members or intercept messages. More or less what was done to capture Saddam.
Since the Taliban still seems to be live and kicking, and according to recent reports, growing stronger, would it have been more accurate to say they ‘moved the Taliban?’ They seem to be moving back.
If the Taliban increases its strength by a hundredfold it will not equal what they had before–control of a country and the ability to channel its resources toward the propagation of international terrorism.
They will doubtlessly be a thorn in the side of the Afghani people for many years to come but I seriously doubt that they will ever again be in control.
Spike wrote:
And its laughable at how the word “unpatriotic” is thrown around when someone doesn’t agree with the war or Bush. We can be patriotic and we can support our troops or hope that they don’t get killed and can come home soon, but we don’t have to be blindly led by politicians trying to divert attention from their failures as leaders.
Oh geez… When will the Lefties of this country stop using this excuse that their patriotism is always being questioned? This is just some lame smokescreen perpetuated by the Left when people happen to disagree with their particular POV (“Oh, and how dare someone have a different perspective from our most righteous thoughts! Blah Blah Blah…”).
And lets not confuse things here. Often people are questioning the Left’s judgment and not their actual patriotism (of course, like I said above, the Left will cry wolf all night long to accuse people of this. Why? That’s all they know how to do these days. Bìŧçh bìŧçh bìŧçh… and play the blame game).
I can be a proud American but still be embarrassed of my Government officials.
And I hope you continue to be a proud American, but let go of the hate and open your mind some, huh? Many like you are just so blinded by your hatred.
Spike wrote:
Which have both not appeared or have been proven not true. We can’t just start a war. We had rules and procedures to follow. We are part of a world not just the United States.
And have you ever peeked over that safty blanket and noticed that the “world” often stands by way too often and ignores way too many things (or simply they’re looking out for their own self interests)? The end result of the removal of Saddam is a just cause and one that should be celebrated.
Yes we know Saddam was a bad man, but we know about the atrocities in China and North Korea and in other Mid Eastern countries, but we aren’t doing anything about them.
Surely you realize that each situation needs to be treated differently, eh? And sure, we could be doing a whole lot more to take down other inhumane evil dictators, but lets be real, we can’t do everything (and yes, our own self interests do play a part — HELLO! Like this is anything new for any country!). To me, to take down one evil regime is 100% better than sitting on the sidelines, diddling with ourself and doing nothing (cough cough — United Nations!.
Do you even know that we don’t count how many civilians are killed and we urged the “new” Iraqian government not to any more either ( we said the numbers are too varied and couldn’t be proven to be useful!! )
And where exactly are you getting that load of smelly propaganda BS? The same people that were feeding you this stuff before the war that at least 300,000 civillians would die by the US? I think the general consensus is that about a thousand Iraqi civillians have died and while that is tragic, just think of how many more would have died had Saddam been left in power. Gee, probably a thousand per week alone! And don’t forget, the US military did a fantastic job in minimizing the civillain casualties. It could have been a whole hëll of a lot worse (and hey, if the Russains had gone in, I’m sure that 300,000 civillain death count would have been accurate!).
There was a better way to get Saddam out of office, there was a safer way, and there was a legal way….we chose not to take any of those choices!
Um, you’re kidding right? I’ll assume you are talking about the UN way. Ha! If the UN had their way, we’d still be talking about the removal of Saddam in the year 2010! “Well, lets issue one more resolution, #2321, and see what happens.”
Spike wrote:
>>I can be a proud American but still be embarrassed of my Government officials.<<
And then Dennis wrote:
>>And I hope you continue to be a proud American, but let go of the hate and open your mind some, huh? Many like you are just so blinded by your hatred.<<
‘Scuse me? After your statement about how people on the left are always complaining that their patriotism is questioned, you go and twist Spike’s feelings from “embarassment” to “hate.” It seems to me there’s a big leap there, and Spike’s not the one making it.
Rob
the world is not black and white; the world is grays.
Whenever anyone says that I think they’re just trying to excuse their mistakes or sins, or @#$%-ups.
CJA
People that “supported” the war never wanna bring up the reason for the war..which was Weapons of Mass Destruction and the eminent danger facing us. Which have both not appeared or have been proven not true.
Tell that to the Kurds or Iranians that died because of the nonexistant WMD’s.
The UN resolutions called for Iraq to present and to destroy their WMD’s. But, instead of enforcing this resolution, the UN passed another resolution saying roughly the same thing. Good thing we have the UN to issue resolutions, because that seems to be about all they are good for. Unless you count taking up large amount of prime real estate in NYC.
Daremo posted:
\\There was a former president that went to war after talks failed, and the original reason for going to war was lost upon those that were affected, on both sides, as the war was fought. The president never made an official change of policy, that I know of, but the reason for the war being fought changed.
The American Civil War. The original reason for the north to go against the south was to preserve the union, but later changed to freeing the slaves. Funny how history has a way of repeating itself. The results are still the same, no matter how you argue about the why. I’m not saying that the ends justify the means, I’m saying that arguing the “why” of it, doesn’t change the fact that what’s done is done. If it was to find WMD, or preserve the union, but ended up being to stop the cruelty of a tyrant committing attrocities against HUMAN KIND, or to free the slaves, the end is the same.\\
Sorry, but Lincoln did not make the War’s goal the liberation of slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation, delivered some 16 months after the “official” beginning of the War, was done with only one goal in mind: To force the Confederacy’s main trading partners, Britain and France, to cease their economic ties with the CSA. You see, Britain and France had both ended slavery, not merely the importation of slaves, but also the practice itself, within the confines of their empires. Lincoln hoped that by turning the Civil War into a “war against slavery” that the two anti-slavery economic powers would be embarrassed in trading with a pro-slavery nation. In that, he succeeded.
However, the Emancipation Proclamation (read the full document here: http://www.usconstitution.net/eman.html) specifically EXCLUDED slave-holding territories under Union control–this included the Union “slave states” (Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and Delaware) as well as all Union-army occupied territory (several Louisiana parishes and Virginia counties are listed by name). Slavery was only “ended” by the Proclamation in territory still controlled by the CSA after January 1, 1863 which effectively meant that even when Lee surrendered to Grant in 1865, there were still millions of square miles of CSA territory in which slavery was still practiced and in which not one slave’s life was made any easier.
People that “supported” the war never wanna bring up the reason for the war..which was Weapons of Mass Destruction and the eminent danger facing us.
Actually, the word is “imminent” and no American President has ever said verbatim that Iraq poses an imminent threat. The notion was that we should prevent Iraq from becoming an imminent threat. (Personally that sounds like a wise policy but I don’t believe that we’ve covered all of our bases). I support the war. I supported the start of the war. I’ll remind you that not only was a confirmation and removal of weapons of mass destruction a reason for the war, but the removal of totalitarian regime was also a reason given. Honestly, that reason wasn’t rendered retroactively. Unseating that government was a reason given, searching for and neutralizing chemical and biological weapons was a reason given, and removing a threat that intended to become imminent were all reasons given, as well as others. It’s dishonest to pretend that there were only two reasons, especially when you can’t get one of them right.
We had rules and procedures to follow. We are part of a world not just the United States.
None (not one) of those rules and procedures requires the United States to gain permission from any other part of the world to engage in war.
There was a better way to get Saddam out of office, there was a safer way, and there was a legal way….we chose not to take any of those choices!
Name those three choices. Please. I want to hear them. I want to read right here what Time magazine and the National Review refused to tell me. (Is now a good time to point out that Saddam wasn’t “in office” so much as he was permanently embedded until death)?
You’re right. Nothing changed. Which means we broke internaional law and invaded a country illegally!
Which international law? Which one? Find me chapter and verse.
killed and destroyed with out the support or the vote of the UN
The United Nations holds no authority over our nation or its military or our choice of military force.
then ask them for money in rebuilding what we destroyed and seek to block them from any rebuilding contracts because they didn’t help destroy what we did
They refuse to help when we ask, a refusal that hurts the Iraqi people far more than it hurts us, I reckon. That’s on their heads.
Our blocking certain nations from benefiting financially from our war is certainly within our rights, and by no means is it a blanket directive towards the entirety of the member nations within the UN.
his “War on Terror”, which, while it has yeilded some results, can be taken care of under the reign of another president
I don’t believe that the leading Democrats actually care to push forward the War on Terror. Lieberman might but he’s too far from winning the Democratic Primary. Dean is outright against these various wars. Clark keeps flip-flopping. Every election is the lesser of two evils…. I don’t believe that the viable Democratic candidates have the appropriate views regarding American foreign policy.
I don’t know anyone who isn’t happy that Saddam Hussein has been captured. That he was an evil, brutal tyrant who committed horrific crimes against his own people is a fact beyond reproach.
I’m sorry to show you this… http://www.eyeontheleft.com/eyeblog/archives/000346.html. I quote: ‘I can’t believe this. I’m crying here. I feel that we now don’t have a chance in this election. – Carrie B’
That person isn’t and shouldn’t be held as a representative of any group but it is an example of how people can be just evil.
That said, I remain as skeptical today as I was last week that democracy can be “imposed” on a country like Iraq from the outside. That’s a valid concern.
According to the book, The Third Wave, by Samuel P. Huntington, democratization is established most effectively through economic means and through the establishment of a working free market society. Unfortunately that can’t always be protected in its nascent form without outside support. West Germany and Japan became democracies only through the support that we are attempting to render in Iraq.
I fear that, as he did in Afghanistan, Bush will simply declare victory (“Mission Accomplish”)
That banner was a declaration made by the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln and for them it was true. The President declared “major combat operations” to be over, but he never declared the mission to be accomplished, at least not for our entire nation or the entire military.
I fear that, as he did in Afghanistan, Bush will simply declare victory (“Mission Accomplish”) and and ignore the problem as the country slides into anarchy.
Which is why we should never pull out too early.
I’m still amazed der fuhrer Bush didn’t just keep Hussein under strict supervision till say…
Comparing our President to Hitler is so immature I’m embarrassed to be reading this.
George W. Bush told us that we needed to go to war with Iraq because the Iraqis were living under a fascist regime, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, and Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ther nations have fascist regimes (Saudi Arabia), yet George W. Bush has shown no interest in them. Other nations have brutal dictators (the Congo), yet George W. Bush has shown no interest in them. Other nations have weapons of mass destruction (North Korea), yet George W. Bush has shown no interest in them.
I think he should show more interest in those countries as well. I agree.
Only one nation is sitting on a tremendous reserve of oil, the annexation of which will benefit the United States (and American-based petroleum companies) for decades to come.
I’m not sure if there’s enough oil in that country to actually profit, given how much capital that’s already been spent on this war. From what I’ve heard we cannot benefit monetarily from the oil situation just because we don’t have…. the numbers just won’t balance out.
I would think that anyone who was willing to believe Bush when he said that there were WMDs in Iraq (which, as far as I know, the President still believes) would be mighty worried right now.
I am. I think that they’re been smuggled into Syria.
The argument could well be made that we tossed aside a chance–at a time when the world sympathized with us–to create a genuine world coalition to not only do away with terrorism, but the circumstances which foster terrorism.
The world was never that much in love with us. Read this. “The goodwill America earned on 9/11 was illusory. Get over it” Alright, that is only the subtitle.
“It is pure fiction that this pro-American sentiment was either squandered after Sept. 11 or lost under the Bush Administration. It never existed. Envy for America, resentment of our power, hatred of our success has been a staple for decades, but most particularly since victory in the cold war left us the only superpower.”
We squandered nothing; it wasn’t there. We had no sympathy that could be used as leverage to make the world free of terrorism. Heck, I want to know what can give us sympathy enough to leverage that kind of event.
CJA
PS – We did indeed finally find WMD — Saddam Hussein!
(quote) The UN resolutions called for Iraq to present and to destroy their WMD’s. But, instead of enforcing this resolution, the UN passed another resolution saying roughly the same thing. Good thing we have the UN to issue resolutions, because that seems to be about all they are good for. Unless you count taking up large amount of prime real estate in NYC. (unquote)
Sigh.
Let us not ignore, please, UNESCO, WHO, UNICEF, many successful peace-keeping operations, uncountable health services, aid to refugees, and on and on.
Yes, the Security Council does issue resolutions. And yes, by some lights, Iraq did not fully comply with or ignored many. As have many other countries against whom resolutions have been passed (the U.S. included among those so singled out).
By all means, the U.N. is not perfect nor a solution to every ill – but it is the best the international community has been able to hold together, and its good works should not be slighted. By its very existence, it has served to tamp down, if not quell altogether, some flare-ups that threatened to escalate well beyond their initial outbreaks.
Oh, and by the way, the 18 acres the U.N. covers is not legally a part of NYC, nor a part of the U.S. – it is a legally emancipated international area belonging to no country – with its own postal service and other independently-administered services, and with some other services contracted to or provided by the host nation, which has the option in some circumstances to bill for services rendered.
A couple of youse guys need to go get laid.
The UN resolutions called for Iraq to present and to destroy their WMD’s. But, instead of enforcing this resolution, the UN passed another resolution saying roughly the same thing. Good thing we have the UN to issue resolutions, because that seems to be about all they are good for. Unless you count taking up large amount of prime real estate in NYC.
Ummm, well, based on the fact that we’ve been there nine months and haven’t found any WMD ourselves, has it ocurred to anybodyelse that maybe Saddam didn’t “present and destroy” his WMD simply because he didn’t have any?
Now I’ve got no love for Saddam, but UN bashing has gotten out of hand. Remeber, up until last March we were part of this group that was “good for nothing but passing resolutions”, and if it hadn’t been for 9/11 I’m sure we’d still just be passing resolutions. I wonder what would have happened if instead of the World Trade Center, two planes crashed into the Moscow and the Russians suddenly wanted to invade Iraq without UN support. Do you think the US would have sat still for that? All we’ve doing is enforcing the world view that the US does what it wants, when it wants, and screw anybody that opposes us or has a different piont of view. This is not the path to world peace and harmony.
Russell wrote:
All we’ve doing is enforcing the world view that the US does what it wants, when it wants, and screw anybody that opposes us or has a different piont of view. This is not the path to world peace and harmony.
Can’t say I agree. Often it seems no matter what the US does we’re still going to be criticized. People are always going to be jealous of the US’s power and the best country in the world (and I’m saying we’re perfect by any means).
As for achieving “world peace and harmony,” well, this is one lofty goal. But taking out Saddam is one step, even if it’s a small one, in that direction. Also, at the end of the day, it’s the United States that needs to look out for themselves. We cannot count on so-called allies such as France (who was pretty much solely responsible for the UN mess) because they have their own self interests to look after (like wanting to have Saddam pay them the money they’re owed for all of those illegal arms they’ve been selling them!).
Alan Coil suggested:
A couple of youse guys need to go get laid.
Wooo! I hope you’re going to spring for the chicks since you brought it up. And, just make sure to send them my way — you know, down to my parents basement where I’m sittin’ and wearin’ a dingy bathrobe and listening to the soundtrack to Star Wars! Snork snork! And if you’re so kind in complying, in return, I’ll let you get some sloppy thirds! Lord knows you probably need to get some too! Snork snork! Hey, can I borrow your Lord of the Rings soundtrack?
Dennis: Oh geez… When will the Lefties of this country stop using this excuse that their patriotism is always being questioned?
Luigi Novi: It is not an excuse. It is something that is actually happening.
Dennis: This is just some lame smokescreen perpetuated by the Left when people happen to disagree with their particular POV (“Oh, and how dare someone have a different perspective from our most righteous thoughts! Blah Blah Blah…”).
Luigi Novi: No, you have it the other way around. It is those who criticize dissenters and protestors for the mere act of dissenting who act as if they are traitors for having a different perspective.
Dennis: And lets not confuse things here. Often people are questioning the Left’s judgment and not their actual patriotism
Luigi Novi: Perhaps. But often, they are in fact questioning their patriotism.
Spike: I can be a proud American but still be embarrassed of my Government officials.
Dennis: And I hope you continue to be a proud American, but let go of the hate and open your mind some, huh? Many like you are just so blinded by your hatred.
Luigi Novi: Thank you for disproving your own point. Someone asserted that he can love his country while still disagreeing with his government, and somehow you turned this into “hatred.” So anyone who disagrees with the war or the government is filled with “hatred.”
Spike: People that “supported” the war never wanna bring up the reason for the war..which was Weapons of Mass Destruction and the eminent danger facing us. Which have both not appeared or have been proven not true.
Jeff: Tell that to the Kurds or Iranians that died because of the nonexistant WMD’s.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, he used gas on them that we gave him. I thought WMD’s referring to biological and nuclear weapons.
Bladestar: I’m still amazed der fuhrer Bush didn’t just keep Hussein under strict supervision till say…
The Blue Spider: Comparing our President to Hitler is so immature I’m embarrassed to be reading this.
Luigi Novi: I agree. A friend of my sister once made this comparison at the dinner table, and I thought she was total fûçkìņg idiot for doing so. I am so sick and tired of people using the words “Nazi” or “Hitler” to describe anyone they don’t like, without any modicum of common sense, without any sense of scale of what Hitler actually did. It’s a cheap shot. It’s like using a fat joke in the middle of a debate with an overweight person.
Charles Krauthammer (at the page linked to by The Blue Spider on 12/16/2003 11:25 PM): Bill Clinton was the most accommodating, sensitive, multilateralist President one can imagine, and yet we know that al-Qaeda began the planning for Sept. 11 precisely during his presidency.
Luigi Novi: Precisely during his presidency? Wow, so the fact that he began doing something during an eight-year period in which the U.S. was presided over by a particular President isn’t incidental, but an act of precision? Pass the fûçkìņg shovel. Bin Laden’s animus toward the U.S. began when Saudi Arabia allowed us to use their soil during the first Gulf War, which occurred under the first Bush administration, not Clinton’s, and this despite the fact that we helped bin Laden during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.
Bin Laden did what he did and when he did because of something for which the U.S. had every right to do, and was not at fault for, something bin Laden decided was some type of crime. Bush should not be blamed for this, and neither should Clinton.
Charles Krauthammer: Clinton made humility his vocation, apologizing variously for African slavery, for internment of Japanese Americans, for not saving Rwanda. He even decided that Britain should return the Elgin Marbles to Greece. A lot of good that did us. Bin Laden issued his Declaration of War on America in 1996–at the height of the Clinton Administration’s hyperapologetic, good-citizen internationalism.
Luigi Novi: What a bunch of utter horseshit. “Clinton admitted some of the mistakes that the U.S. had committed, so that means that’s why bin Laden chose to attack.” What a mentally retarded non sequitur.
Even dumber is that a bit lower down in that very same piece, Krauthammer states:
“We are widely reviled as enemies of Islam, yet in the 1990s we engaged three times in combat — in the Persian Gulf and in the Balkans — to rescue Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo, Muslim peoples all. And in the last two cases, there was nothing in it for the U.S.; it was humanitarianism and good international citizenship of the highest order.”
So Krauthammer first says that Clinton was our most accommodating President, whose humility he all but blames for 9/11, then later, to rebuff critics who say that we are enemies of Islam, points out that we went to war three times for humanitarian reasons to aid Muslims, even though two of those were under Clinton? What a deluded ypocrite.
When I first heard about the capture, I was thrilled. The Irais wouldn’t have to be afraid anymore… they might finally truly feel free. Then my brain kicked in, and I got to thinking.
Being a college student who has his own place, I realized something. Freedom is a very dangerous thing. When I first moved into the apartment, I was reckless. I had loud late night parties, or stayed up late watching TV, I rarely if ever cleaned the place, my grades slipped a bit, on days without classes I didn’t always wear pants…. in other words, I screwed up big time. Then I got to thinking, it’s been twenty years since these people have had much political freedom. What if they screw up? Not just as indviduals, but as a country? I’m pretty sure it’d be a lot more serious than not wearing pants.
All I’ll say on the subject is this:
“NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, Hey, Hey, Goodbye Uncle Saddam.”
Let the Kurds gas him like he did to them.
An eye for an eye.
Way to go troops!
Oh geez… When will the Lefties of this country stop using this excuse that their patriotism is always being questioned? This is just some lame smokescreen perpetuated by the Left when people happen to disagree with their particular POV (“Oh, and how dare someone have a different perspective from our most righteous thoughts! Blah Blah Blah…”).
I don’t think the “left” hides behind that smokescreen you keep talking about. Hëll your supposed to have a differing veiwpoint from me, your a different person. I’ve got questions of my own… Why does the “Right” hide behind “patriotism” and the presidents decision all the time?
Why can’t the “Right” question the actions of other members of the “right”? Why do they see the “left” as a blanket opposition,
while it is much more fragmented than the “right” is? Why do many of the “right” constantly attack not the veiws but the veiwmakers?Why does the “right” equate capitalism to democratic republic? Why doesn’t the “right” acknowledge the connections between large corporations and the government that are so apparent?
Please will somebody among the “right” please respond with logical answers… and not with fallacious comments like “Since you opposed the invasion, shouldn’t you demand that hussein be restored to power?”