Dead man walking...

dd74 · 12-28-2006, 11:50 PM

Someone's gonna' hang this weekend...

...question is: has it been worth it?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/29/hussein/index.html

legion · 12-29-2006, 05:12 AM

Can we throw Sean Penn in on the deal? As a bonus?

...

Was it worth it?

Well, this has gone pretty much exactly as I thought it would. (I was frustrated with Bush early on giving overly rosy estimates of casualties and an overly optimistic timetable.) And I have supported this endeavor from the beginning--and still do support it. In my opinion, the payoff is long-term. Having a stable democracy in the ME is a very good thing, but it will take 20 or 30 years to get to that point. I really think history will look back on this war much like we look back on the American Revolution: That it is obvious in retrospect that the payoff was worth the risk. Right now we are at the end of the second act: the darkest hour. Whether this ends a tragedy or a drama rests squarely on the shoulders of one George W. Bush. I will judge his presidency a success or a failure based on what he does next.

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

At least Saddam has an "exit strategy". That's more than we can say for the Clown Crew in Washington.

kach22i · kach22i's Garage

Will not change a thing.

I wish it would.

on-ramp · 12-29-2006, 06:34 AM

we're all "dead men walking".

some of us just have more time than others.

island911 · 12-29-2006, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
At least Saddam has an "exit strategy". That's more than we can say for the Clown Crew in Washington.

Brilliant.

Has this 'war' embarassed you so much that you feel for Saddam?

Should we have let Saddam keep Hans Blix so gainfully employed? .... all whilst Iraq was shooting at our planes? . ... all whilst buying UN protection thru "food for oil" cover? . .. all whilst funding terrorist to pop in crowded areas? ....worlds third largest army. --the list is very long.

So here is where your knee-jerk segway into how evil GW is, comes in. . . .you know, that evil bastard wanted to listen in on international phone calls. --pure evil.

Quick, tell us all how GW Bush is the one to pin it all on.

DavidI · 12-29-2006, 07:05 AM

Hang him!

on-ramp · 12-29-2006, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by island911
Brilliant.

Has this 'war' embarassed you so much that you feel for Saddam?

Should we have let Saddam keep Hans Blix so gainfully employed? .... all whilst Iraq was shooting at our planes? . ... all whilst buying UN protection thru "food for oil" cover? . .. all whilst funding terrorist to pop in crowded areas? ....worlds third largest army. --the list is very long.

So here is where your knee-jerk segway into how evil GW is, comes in. . . .you know, that evil bastard wanted to listen in on international phone calls. --pure evil. Quick, tell us all how GW Bush is the one to pin it all on.

the death and destruction caused by Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq put the 9/11 terrorists to shame.

MRM · 12-29-2006, 07:36 AM

I certainly want him to hang, but I think it is too soon. I want him to sit in judgment for all the crimes he is charged with. It may take a few years, but if the world sees him stand trial over and over again, his antics will wear thin, even to the Europeans, and history will judge his prosecution as just and a guide to how to deal with future war criminals rather than just another case of the winners hanging the losers.

This is important for a couple of reasons. First, we want the world to accept Saddam's convictions as legitimate. Second, we want a the trial to stand as good precedent for future war crimes trials, such as Nuremberg and the Kosovo trials have been. Finally, Saddam's victims deserve to see him stand in judgment for all his crimes, not just the first ones he got charged with.

If his convictions are widely accepted as just, and the product of a just trial, it enhances American prestige, serves as a moral guide to other nations, and prevents other countries from arguing that they can hang people despite procedural defects because America did it to Saddam.

I am not arguing that Saddam's first trial was unfair or procedurally flawed. From what I could see it was very well done. But it was not so above criticism that the Europeans and wacko left can't attack it. I think it is well worth our time and effort to try him over and over again, since his crimes are so voluminous and well documented, until there is general consensus among responsible nations and observers that he has been treated fairly and should hang.

Superman · 12-29-2006, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by island911
.........tell us all how GW Bush is the one to pin it all on.

Dubya gets pinned, Island. Saddam's murders are not on his hands, but he does have responsibility for a decision that is widely criticized and some strategic and tactical ineptitude that many consider to be inexcusable. That's the question raised by the thread-starter. Back to that. Focus.

I don't think it was worth it. We've made a big splash in Iraq. Enough to cement our reputation as a violent, interfering nation with imperial interests. Just exactly why they hate us in the first place. For exporting Western values (or lack thereof) and capitalism. Disguised as "democracy."

Then again, one of the victories here will be the death of the guy who tried to assasinate Dubya's dad. That and the longshot chance to be considered a genius in the history books, is what Dubya's decisions was all about. He'll achieve the revenge part this week. The genius part......well.......I think thousands of American lives have been gambled on a big loser. I think history will use Dubya as an example of the worst kind of bonehead decision-maker. The most wrong-headed president in our nation's history.

Back to you......

livi · 12-29-2006, 07:58 AM

He already looks like something out of Madame Tussaud´s wax cabinet.

Or maybe he is already there. Havn´t been there lately.

Superman · 12-29-2006, 07:59 AM

I will admit this. I like the PR effect this will have. Now that we've made a huge mess in Iraq, it's nice to show a victory. The death of a murderer. I'm not sure the Iraqi people abhor a dictator. I suspect that dictatorship is an aspect of their culture. But he was a murderer. And he will die. That's something to show for all the other lives that have been ended and ruined.

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by island911
Brilliant.

Has this 'war' embarassed you so much that you feel for Saddam?

Should we have let Saddam keep Hans Blix so gainfully employed? .... all whilst Iraq was shooting at our planes? . ... all whilst buying UN protection thru "food for oil" cover? . .. all whilst funding terrorist to pop in crowded areas? ....worlds third largest army. --the list is very long.

So here is where your knee-jerk segway into how evil GW is, comes in. . . .you know, that evil bastard wanted to listen in on international phone calls. --pure evil. Quick, tell us all how GW Bush is the one to pin it all on.

I've got some oceanfront property in Nevada to sell you. Cripes, with the way you're buying the revisionist rationalizations for the war in Iraq, I get the feeling you'd go for it too. Stop being so gullible. Let's look at the chronological history of the "reasons" for the invasion, shall we?

1. WMDs!!! Oh my god!!! The sky is falling!!! Our brilliant leader gets up there and says (and I quote), "Iraq represents a grave and gathering danger" to the U.S. and western interests. An "imminent threat" (without methods of delivery or WMD warheads, but that's not important, right? We'll just make it up in some "intelligence" reports to justify our actions). Still nothing found to date except some overlooked, mostly inert artillery shells the Iraqi army commanders probably didn't even realize they still had. No mobile anthrax labs. No nuclear reactors. No plutonium bombs. Nothin'. A few aging Soviet-era anti-aircraft radar batteries that were used mostly to torment aircraft in the "no fly" zones (and when they flipped 'em on, it usually resulted in a HARM being launched down their throats, so they were largely just a nuisance anyway - it was suicide to actually use them in an aggressive manner). When it started to become clear that there WERE no WMDs (for me it was when U.S. troops closed to within 20 miles of Baghdad - if Iraq had 'em they'd have used 'em then), the Administration switched its focus to:

2. LINK TO AL-QAEDA!!! Yes! Saddam Hussein is really OBL's long-lost cousin! He's in secret meetings with the operators of anti-western terrorist camps daily! He's harboring the next wave of suicide hijackers in one of his palaces! He's a Muslim extremist (he's not, he's actually not a religious guy at all, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story here. . .) Of course the 9/11 Commission (and fortunately most of the American people) realized that this was a steaming pile of propagandist poo-poo also. So, undaunted, Bush and Co. whipped out:

3. LIBERATION OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE!!! Yea! That's it! That's the REAL reason we went there! For the Iraqi populace! We're working on winning their "hearts and minds" (and oil, but just forget about that - it's not important). . . These poor misunderstood people really love each other and want nothing more than to hold hands and sing koombyaa and roast s'mores together over campfires and embrace our superior western values. Yep. We decided it was a humanitarian effort and those poor western-lovin' people had suffered under Hussein long enough (just don't mention Darfur, okay?) Of course most people didn't buy that either, so the Bush spin machine invented:

4. THE MARCH OF DEMOCRACY!!! Yes! Nothing else is working, so we'll go back to the excuse that was used to justify the American presence in Vietnam for such a long time. Yea - we're promoting the march of democracy in the region! It's the big picture folks. Really! We went there to sow the seeds of democracy and let the Iraqis govern themselves! 'Cause that's our purpose in the world - helping to build stronger independent nations. But we don't believe in "nation building". Nope. That's. . . um. . . different. . . somehow. Just forget about that. . . "FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH!!! RAH!!! RAH!!! RAH!!!". Which brings us to today:

5. IRAQI SELF-GOVERNMENT!!! Well, kind of a hybrid of #3 and #4 - now we claim that we're really there to "help" the Iraqi government get up to speed with the task of governing the country (which we destroyed the infrastructure of, but that's not important either). We're really just big fuzzy-wuzzy teddy bears that wanna' give the poor widdle Iraqi interim government leaders huggy-wuggies and make sure they don't have any hard times. 'cause this whole thing was really about getting the Iraqis to govern themselves from the beginning. We had no intention of going in there to set up a puppet government and putting semi-permanent military bases in as a check against Iran or Syria at the request of the Israelis now, did we? Oil? Pshaw. "War for oil" is a mantra recited by anti-patriotic leftist pinko commies! Of course it is, silly! There's no need for OIL out of Iraq! We want THEM to have their OWN oil and to support themselves in a democratic way! Of course! That's what we meant to say from the beginning. . .

C'mon dude. Is your memory THAT short? This thing has stunk of bull**** from the get-go. And it wasn't that long ago. We had no business there other than we wanted a permanent presence in the M.E. to hang a "sword of Damocles" over the heads of the Iranians and Syrians (probably at the beckon call of Israel) and as a side- benefit to (1) avenge the assassination plot against daddy and (2) to pay back my oil buddies for getting me elected.

LET'S GET F*CKING REAL HERE!!!

Money. Politics. Period. That's the reason and the explaination for 99% of what goes on in the world. Cripes!

m21sniper · 12-29-2006, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dd74
Someone's gonna' hang this weekend...

...question is: has it been worth it?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/29/hussein/index.html

No, but i still enjoy a good hangin' of a dictator.

m21sniper · 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile 1. WMDs!!! Oh my god!!! The sky is falling!!! Our brilliant leader gets up there and says (and I quote), "Iraq represents a grave and gathering danger" to the U.S. and western interests. An "imminent threat" (without methods of delivery or WMD warheads, but that's not important, right? We'll just make it up in some "intelligence" reports to justify our actions). Still nothing found to date except some overlooked, mostly inert artillery shells the Iraqi army commanders probably didn't even realize they still had. No mobile anthrax labs. No nuclear reactors. No plutonium bombs. Nothin'. A few aging Soviet-era anti-aircraft radar batteries that were used mostly to torment aircraft in the "no fly" zones (and when they flipped 'em on, it usually resulted in a HARM being launched down their throats, so they were largely just a nuisance anyway - it was suicide to actually use them in an aggressive manner). When it started to become clear that there WERE no WMDs (for me it was when U.S. troops closed to within 20 miles of Baghdad - if Iraq had 'em they'd have used 'em then), the Administration switched its focus to:[/b]

It was Saddam's own deliberate disinformation campaign that convinced the world he still had WMD. He deliberately lied to everyone- including his own top generals. On the eve of war he called them all together in a meeting and told them straight up- we have no chemical weapons.

No one in the meeting believed him.

So i can hardly fault our own leader for buying into the same highly effective disinformation campaign.

"The truth is a commodity so precious she should at all times be accompanied by a pack of lies."
~Winston Churchill

And the simple fact is that Iraq's chem and bio programs could've been reconsituted in a matter of weeks starting from the moment the UN backed off, for whatever it's worth.

Nope, i do not agree that it was a mistake to get Saddam. The mistake was in the implementation. BIG TIME.

island911 · 12-29-2006, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by on-ramp
the death and destruction caused by Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq put the 9/11 terrorists to shame.

There it is, Bush is worse than the 9/11 terrorists.

Supie sez: "not sure the Iraqi people abhor a dictator. I suspect that dictatorship is an aspect of their culture."

So really then, Bush isn't enough of a ruthless dictator to keep the Iraqies happy.

You guys ARE right, Bush is really screwing this up. Maybe if he started dropping some nukular WMD on an Iraqi town or two, the Iraqies would be happy again. . .. and the Lib's would be happy that the Iraqies are happy AND Boosh still has speech issues.

m21sniper · 12-29-2006, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by on-ramp
the death and destruction caused by Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq put the 9/11 terrorists to shame.

Moron.

island911 · 12-29-2006, 08:44 AM

Hey, P-O-Phile . . .

What's the answer?

Has this war embarassed you so much that you feel for Saddam?

Does his wearing western clothes, and sport'n a grandpa beard make him more likable?

. . .or was he okay back in his military dictator green too?

on-ramp · 12-29-2006, 09:07 AM

whatever P-O-Phile said. absolutely 100% correct.

Superman · 12-29-2006, 09:08 AM

Island, how 'bout you say something that you think? We know what we are trying to say, and your reactionary and caricaturized exaggerations of our comments are barely interpretable. And not helpful at all.

If you honestly think that dropping nukes on Iraq would be a good move, then say so. We will then know what your thinking is.

Most of us feel strongly that Dubya has, at a bare minimum, made a huge mistake in judgement. Or worse, depending on what he really knew at the time. Some of you guys are still asserting that time will show his towering genius. I think that notion would be amusing if it weren't so pathetic.

Now, how 'bout telling us what YOU think?

........or just return to mischaracterizing what WE think.