Thursday, December 28, 2006
Smart politics:Why execute Saddam Hussein in the next day or so? To create a buzz that diminishes the news of 3,000 U.S. troops killed in Iraq (which will happen by Monday, at the current rate). That's the correct order. Executing Hussein after the 3,000 number is reached won't have quite the same impact.
posted by Quiddity at 12/28/2006 06:35:00 PM
20 comments
Unfortunately, mainstream media is what will determine the impact. The way the MSM reports this milestone continues to push the misconception that attacking Iraq had something to do with responding to the 9/11 attacks.
Look at these videos: The Continuing BS from AP and the MSM about Iraq and 9/11
Journalistic Malpractice: Iraq 9/11 and US support of Israel
As if Germany had anything to do with Pearl Harbor ...
Hey jms, how come you're here coyly spinning a played-out conspiracy theory about 9/11 and Iraq and aren't on patrol in Fallujah, Iraq, finding us some WMDs and Osama bin Laden his stinking self?
Or some UFOs? Sounds like you know where they are.
Mostly because I'm not a member of the military. I suspect that you aren't either, yet that doesn't stop you from commenting on the war either.
As for UFOs, you're on your own.
Tom's comment about Germany is a little too supportive of the Bush lies. Is Tom a Rethuglican troll?
Germany was allied with Japan, so there was a Pearl Harbor connection.
Al Qaida and Taliban Afganistan were polar opposites to Sadam's Iraq. Al Qaida is very much against secular governments in Muslim countries.
A better analogy would be if the US had attacked Argentina after Pearl Harbor...no one would have seen that one coming.
Tommy, Germany declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan, but before the US declared war on Germany.
Check your history books.
There is reason to doubt that Germany's declaration of war on the US was anything other than symbolic, but thems the facts.
--raj
jms, you say you're not in uniform, but you've discovered a historical parallel between Iraq and the WWII threat to America from Nazi Germany.
That sounds damn dangerous to our country. That being your opinion, jms, why aren't you in Iraq? What's the deal with making clever comments anonymously on a blog when you could be glorious in Iraq? Why be a lurking cheerleader when you could be a Marine?
Go talk to a recruiter and then get back to us when you're a hero.
see video: Re: Why Invade Iraq?
US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time. Mr. Akins said, "I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them".
"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often.
"Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us".
The Devil in the Details: The CIA and Saddam Hussein
They have hanged Saddam this morning (7 hours ago)
Btw, the US were de facto at war with Germany long before Hitler's official declaration (preempting the same by the US by not much).
Draw a parallel to Iraq, if you want to.
HB
Don't forget that Saddam was committing acts of overt war against the United States every day by having his military shoot at U.S. warplanes flying U.N. patrols in the no-fly zones. You'll find it right there in the force resolution -- in one of those "fly-over" paragraphs that liberals continually ignore in their rush from the beginning of the document to their final destination -- the WMD paragraphs.
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Anyway. my point is simple. Japan started WW2, but defeating Germany was clearly essential in order to win the war. Similarly, Al Quada started this war, and defeating Iraq was essential to winning this war. So is defeating Iran and Syria BTW, which is why we need a troop surge in Iraq. 30,000 troops will do nothing to improve the security situation in Iraq, but is about the right number of troops to mount an invasion of Iran.
It's new to me that Japan started WW2.
I always thought WW2 started with the German invasion of Poland in 1939. Must have been those liberal history teachers that covered for the yellow monkeys that put that wrong info in my head.
HB
Alright, Japan caused the U.S. to become involved in WW2, if you want to split hairs. I don't see how that advances your point though.
The reason for the quick execution is simple: If Saddam had been tried for the Kurdish massacre, facts about the source of those chemical weapons would have come out. And even Limbaugh and al Foxeera would have had difficulty protecting the Gipper's reputation.
The U.S. was not flying "U.N." patrols over the no-fly zones.
The no-fly zones were never sanctioned by the U.N.
From the BBC: No-fly zones: The legal position.
The U.S. claimed justification for the zones under international law. But the Security Council never gave authorization, and two members with veto power, Russia and China, "condemned the no-fly zones as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty, and they insist[ed] there is no backing for the policy under international law or UN resolutions."
If there is a hell, Saddam is in it. He committed a great many crimes against peace and humanity. But initating unprovoked wars against the United States was not one of them.
If you're trying to justify Saddam's hanging, you really don't have to embroider the historical record.
If there is a hell, Saddam is in it. He committed a great many crimes against peace and humanity. But initating unprovoked wars against the United States was not one of them.
I wasn't aware that the no-fly zones were not part of U.N. sanctions, and I stand corrected.
However, all that means is that Iraq's shooting at U.S. warplanes were an act of war against the United States, not the United Nations.
What would the US do, if some other nation would send war-planes over its territory and bomb air defense positions and infrastructure?
No apologies for Saddam (good riddance) but that's another fake reason to go to war.
I see the main real reasons as (no order implied):
1) Get rid of the unfaithful vassal
2) Get a new foothold in the area because Saudi Arabia won't last
3) Get the oil
4) Impress everybody (including the voters) about the military power of the mighty US and its fearless leader
HB
What would the US do, if some other nation would send war-planes over its territory and bomb air defense positions and infrastructure?
What if the Republicans were using helicopter gunships and chemical weapons to attack and destroy Democratic cities. Would that change your calculus?
1) Get rid of the unfaithful vassal
He hadn't been a "faithful vassal" for years.
2) Get a new foothold in the area because Saudi Arabia won't last
The only reason we are out of Saudi Arabia is because we are into Iraq. If we hadn't gone into Iraq, the Saudis would be begging us to stay to protect them from Saddam. Remember Kuwait?
3) Get the oil
It's been three years, and all we've done is repair the oil wells and hand them back to the Iraqi government. If we're going to start stealing oil, when is it going to happen?
4) Impress everybody (including the voters) about the military power of the mighty US and its fearless leader
Actually, given the politics of the middle east, that's a pretty good strategy. Liberals keep lamenting the loss of Saddam saying, "It takes a strongman to keep a place like Iraq from falling to pieces." What better strongman than the United States. To be more specific, Iran and Syria need constant, close-range reminding of just how powerful the United States is and the potential consequences of waging open war (as opposed to proxy war, which we inexplicably seem to tolerate) against the U.S., Iraq, or Israel.
0)Hey, statements like this are legally reserved for Ann Coulter.
1)And "wishy-washy" Bush senior didn't finish the job, so the balls-bearing son had to do it.
2)You probably haven't read some of the documents made public, did you?
The "Out of Saudi Arabia" motive is not even denied.
3)Oil: read the actual decrees of the "independent" Iraq concerning that and then tell me it is not legalized theft.
4) Quite successful wasn't it? I guess you would not be totally averse to nuking them just to show them who has the biggest one.
I will put no further comments in this thread btw.
0)Hey, statements like this are legally reserved for Ann Coulter.
1)And "wishy-washy" Bush senior didn't finish the job, so the balls-bearing son had to do it.
2)You probably haven't read some of the documents made public, did you?
The "Out of Saudi Arabia" motive is not even denied.
3)Oil: read the actual decrees of the "independent" Iraq concerning that and then tell me it is not legalized theft.
4) Quite successful wasn't it? I guess you would not be totally averse to nuking them just to show them who has the biggest one.
I will put no further comments in this thread btw.
"Iraq's shooting at U.S. warplanes were an act of war against the United States, not the United Nations." - jms
So we spent how many lives and how much money in Iraq compared to Saddam accomplishing what exactly by targeting US planes? At best, this is a desperate act in trying to justify using a bazooka against a mosquito.
I know you have stronger arguments for going into Iraq, but even mentioning this tidbit shows how willing you are in repeating inciteful yet insubstantial rhetoric as peddled by your leaders who have been proven wrong on WMD, "Mission Accomplished", and reconstruction/stabilization.
"Liberals keep lamenting the loss of Saddam saying, 'It takes a strongman to keep a place like Iraq from falling to pieces.' What better strongman than the United States?" -jms
What is lamented is the relative calm that existed when Saddam was in power as compared to the current situation. The fact that Saddam did a better job in keeping Iraq stable says a lot about the incompetence of your leaders in using History's mightiest military force ever against a WMD-less third world country.
Be honest. The only thing you care about is sticking it to the "Liberals." As long as your leaders say what you want to hear, you couldn't care less about their competence. You faithfully await the hundredth milestone announced and firmly believe victory is at hand, even if the end result of the past 99 milestones has been more violence.
As much as I hated the radical hippies of the 60s/70s and their legacy, I have to say the avid followers of the radicalization of conservatism are far more spaced out and destructive to this country.
Neither conservatives or liberals have a monopoly in what's right, but I have to wonder what the *hell* is wrong with people like you?
|
