Saddam Hussein has been executed.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 29, 2006 07:53 PM | Email ThisWe helped to bring Saddam to justice. I hope that counts for something when we're judged for all of the other things our illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq has done.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 29, 2006 08:10 PMYeah... they nailed him for 150 people or so. But what about 5000 Kurds? Don't the survivors get their day in court?
I dunno... it's just... something...
Here in the US, murderers get 10 or more years before we fry them... and we do this guy in a few months?
What's the hurry? Something isn't being said here.
Posted by: Hinton on December 29, 2006 08:34 PMAnd of course, the obligatory Bush dig at the end:
"...the leader remained defiant until the end. In July 2004, he told the court that it was President Bush who should be put on trial."
The MSM's hatred of America, democracy, and the president continues in a post 9-11 world.
Posted by: Organization Man on December 29, 2006 09:22 PM
17 minutes seems to be all it take.
What makes you think that our invasion of Iraq was illegal, other than the fact that you love socialists, fascists, and dictators, as long as they provide abortion on demand?
Saddam had violated something like 17 resolutions from the UN. Dubya went to the UN, and to the US Congress to get a resolution authorizing our invasion of Iraq.
So I guess in your twisted mind that makes our invasion "illegal."
Only when you hate your own country and think that it's the sole source of evil in the world could one have these thoughts.
If you'd like, I'll pay for your one way ticket to the totalitarian country of your choice; China, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Cuba, or your choice.
Then you can enjoy free medical care after they gouge your eyes out. I'm sure that they'll celebrate your hatred of America.
Let me know how I can pay for your ticket.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on December 29, 2006 10:48 PMYes, quoting the approving words of Thomas Jefferson, prime author of our Declaration of Independence, shows hatred for America. (What weird planet do you live on? Does rain fall upwards there? Can you get me a tourist visa?)
"What makes you think that our invasion of Iraq was illegal...?"
We tried the Nazis and Imperial Japanese commanders for invading countries which had not threatened them. Saddam's evil regime did not threaten us; heck, the Reagan Administration even supported him. (Did Ronald Reagan hate America? How about Donald Rumsfeld?)
"Only when you hate your own country and think that it's the sole source of evil in the world could one have these thoughts."
I love my country. I hate to see it bring evil to the world. Our soldiers' sexual abuse of Iraqis will haunt us for years to come. I blame not our soldiers, but their commanders, President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, for putting them there, and for undermining their discipline with stupid diktats. I hope to see Bush and Rumsfeld on trial in the future.
But for now, we can all rejoice that a tyrant has died, and that Jefferson's request has been granted yet again. I hope that Saddam's many victims can find peace in his long-overdue execution. Someday, all tyrants will be long-dead, and we'll all be the better for it. Again, I hope that our good deed today redeems us for all of the suffering we have caused to the innocent peoples of Iraq, who deserved neither Saddam, nor the "shock and awe" we used to dislodge him.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 30, 2006 01:07 AMLet's let the world & its mean people alone and hope they won't bother us. Wait 'till the kettle spills over everywhere--especially in strategic oil & nuke areas. Ostrich Principle. Words hurt. Our bombs hit only the innocent civilians. Soldiers only torture and degrade the innocent "freedom fighters." Heads aren't severed, it's just a VERY close shave. Our 9-11 countrymen were not jumping to their deaths.
I guess a tyrant's years of ignored UN resolutions, oil-food scandals and "legal wars" like Kosovo only apply to justify certain administrations' military actions. Pick & choose your righteousness depending on the party?
Let's love & understand everyone, right, Mr. Chamberlain? Here's your treaty.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on December 30, 2006 06:36 AM"...should be watered with the blood of tyrants AND PATRIOTS."
Let us not forget the nearly 3,000 American service members (and a handful of civilians) who have so far lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is their blood, too, that keeps that tree of liberty alive and flourishing.
Take a moment to honor their sacrifice, and that of their loved ones.
Posted by: Joe Waldron on December 30, 2006 07:03 AMThe quote you mis-quote is in a letter from Jefferson to William Smith, John Adams' secretary and future son-in-law, dated November 13, 1787. He was expressing support for Shay's Rebellion. From the transcript of the letter in the Library of Congress:
"what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure." (Emphasis mine.)
Jefferson wasn't expressing support for refreshing the tree of liberty with blood of tyrants like Saddam, he was expressing support for rebellion of a free people against their rulers, and blood must be shed in pursuit of the goal of keeping their rulers in check, and the people free.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on December 30, 2006 07:38 AMAnybody who equates Saddam Hussein with our President and his advisors is not to be taken seriously.
Taken outside and smacked upside the head for being a fool, maybe. But taken seriously? Nope.
However, it is helpful for you to reveal to others just whose side you're on.
Posted by: jimg on December 30, 2006 09:35 AMhttp://tinyurl.com/y6lal9
Some flamer who calls himself "moderate" is beside himself blaming Bush and this evil country for everything from tooth decay to acne.
WE ARE EVIL.
Posted by: Huey on December 30, 2006 09:37 AMIf Saddam represented the best of what Islam has to offer, than all Americans should be anti-Muslim. Not sure how Siddiqui explains the thousands of Muslim-on-Muslim murders going on in Iraq; I suppose it's GWB's fault.
We shouldn't mourn Saddam's passing. After all, he's waking up this morning trying to decide which of 72 virgins he'll sleep with tonight.
Posted by: Organization Man on December 30, 2006 11:01 AMNow that Saddam Hussein is dead, where do we go to get the 3,000 kids' lives back?
Not to mention the $1,000,000,000,000.00 or so that we have spent.
Now, there needs to be a new direction in the war/occupation in Iraq. The president can improve or ruin his place in history - depending on what happens over the course of the next 2 years. There is no easy way to rectify this situation - however, clearly the wrong way is to proceed without changing the course. Stop the politically correct fighting & give the troops the tools to engage the enemy under any terms - it is either kill or be killed in some instances. I am skeptical about sending more troops in and that really shouldn't happen until this action is justified with a new plan.
Stay out of Bagdad ! unless Al-Sadr is there & the Iraqi Government specifically says go there. Also, why did we never make an attempt to secure the borders with Iran and Syria ? Even if there has been some attempt, there was no PR from the White House/Pentagon about that. Seems like Bush has no interest in securing borders - (just calling it like I see it). We need to capture or preferably kill Al-Sadr soon, and unless that happens - expect an increase in sectarian violence in response to Sadaam's execution.
Posted by: KS on December 30, 2006 12:33 PMSaddam was executed for a mass murder he'd ordered in 1982. In late December of 1983, Donald Rumsfeld shook his hand. (Another great moment in morality from the Reagan Administration!) We sure know how to set a wonderful example for the rest of the world, hm?
Our 'morality' was always simple. We embraced him when we thought it served our interests, and we removed him when we thought it served our interests. That we seem to have been wrong on both occasions does not in any way alter our utter subservience to expediency -- it just adds incompetence to our list of unappealing attributes.
Poor Rummy-- when he finally goes on trial, his only character witness will no longer be alive to testify on his behalf.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 30, 2006 01:17 PMIt seems to me that you only think we have unappealing attributes. Can you list any appealing ones, or are you so blinded to the greatness of our nation?
Posted by: Michael H on December 30, 2006 01:48 PMWe have the largest diversity of religions in the history of the world. Neither the Roman nor British Empries ever contained so many disparate beliefs. Yet, unlike those governments, we have no sectarian violence. We prove, by living example, how persons of different faiths can live together in peace. In a world with so many religious conflicts, we provide a shining example of the best possible situation. We actually live the ideal other countries want, but cannot obtain. Every American should be proud of this, especially during this time of (several concurrent) Holiday Seasons. I certainly feel great pride in our accomplishments, especially when they align perfectly with our stated beliefs. It shows the rightness of our values, and the rewards for sticking to our great principles.
We led the worldwide struggles against Fascism and Communism, resolutely winning a crushing defeat in each case. Freedom reigns supreme in more places than it ever has, and the U.S.A. deserves a huge amount of the credit. We should have little problem with a handful of religious nut cases, but that relatively small conflict bedevils us still. This is especially puzzling given our great history of religious diversity. Why can we not leverage our strengths to defeat a bunch of people who live in caves? Especially when their ideology holds little appeal for most of their fellow Muslims, and no appeal for anyone else.
If I didn't care about this country, I could just leave. But I love the United States, and I believe that our greatest days lie ahead of us. It hurts to have us make such huge mistakes, as we repeatedly have in Iraq. That image of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand rankles still. Think about it. Rummy went there because the Reagan Administration feared a collapse of Saddam's regime, after Iraq had launched an unprovoked invasion of Iran. We supported a dictator who'd slaughtered his own citizens, and rewarded him for his external aggression. Does it come as any surprise that his victim list grew much longer after that, or that he'd invade yet another country? We bear some responsibility for encouraging him, even if we thought it served our interests to do so at the time. (Wouldn't working to end the Iran-Iraq war have served our interests even better?) Aggravating our stupidity, we have now created the very conditions which Reagan sent Rumsfeld to prevent! We've lost more Americans than died on 9/11, and the radical theocracy of Iran gets whatever benefits come from our invasion. If we wanted to stop radical Islam -- and I certianly do -- we've done just the opposite. ("The stupid! It burns!")
Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 30, 2006 02:26 PMIf only. And can you take the other terrorist sympathizers with you?
Thanks, PM... much appreciated.
Posted by: Hinton on December 30, 2006 03:34 PMsorry for your loss.
Posted by: libsrpatheticcoddlers on December 30, 2006 03:35 PMWhat is being leveraged is the message from the US leftists to every terrorist in the world ..,we do not support our nation, we support any terrorist that will work against America.
Sen Rockefeller is so proud of his trip to meet with the terrorists (long before our troops went in to Iraq) in Jan 2002.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175433,00.htm
This month we have Sen Nelson, Sen Kerry, Sen Dodd, Sen Specter and others flying off to meet
with leaders of countries that are committed to defeating the US.
We had the same in the 1970's, American soldiers defending a nation, that American leftists led by John Kerry destroyed. John Kerry's own statements in front of the Committee on Foreign Relations on the US Senate on 22 Apr 1971 admitted that he met with our enemies, while they were killing American soldiers, adopted and promoted the enemies position.
In 2004, the Democrats nominated John Kerry to be their candidate for President of the US. Every terrorist in the world got the message..
If the American left supported America, South Vietnam would still be a free nation, and Iraq would have been over long ago. Terrorists can not defeat the American military. Only the American left can defeat America. There are American leftists in both major parties today.
Haven't we offended their dignity by not cutting off his head with a dull knife on live video?
I'm terrified that this execution was perhaps too westernized for iraqi culture.
I would not dance around the death of any man.
Indeed, Churchill was concerned about what we were doing in the name of freedom and liberty. Then again, the British Empire was not exactly the latest word in those areas, either. Perhaps FDR should not have provided Lend-Lease Aid?
We took full advantage of one dictatorship attacking another, and we eventually finished both of them off. If we bowed to expediency, at least it worked. The Reagan Administration provided weapons to Iran during the 1980's as well, lying to the world about it. So what purpose did Rumsfeld's embrace of Saddam serve? As I wrote, if we want to justify a policy on the basis of expediency, the policy should at least work.
In reality, we have to make careful choices in the world, and we can't always do the pure thing. But aiding Saddam and the Iranian Imams simultaneously was worse than useless. (Rumsfeld in particular seems to have learned nothing from a failed policy he himself had implemented.) Rashly toppling a secular despot, when a radical theocracy right next door was just waiting to take advantage, was also worse than useless. (It also detracts from our real struggle against Islamic extremism, currently flailing in Afghanistan.)
(BTW, Hitler declared war upon the United States. We didn't just decide to go take him out one day.)
"If the American left supported America, South Vietnam would still be a free nation, and Iraq would have been over long ago. "
Wow, what's the weather like on your planet? Do you seriously think the Sunni insurgency depends in any way on what American leftists think or do? This President did everything his way on Iraq, utterly unihibited by anyone, for the last four years. And the gawdawful mess that is Iraq is his result. Saddam's removal of power (now permanently) is the only good result, and 'good' only if we refuse to look at how much the radicals in Iran have benefited.
Do you believe that if the Parliament had kept financing the war in the colonies, America would not have become independent? The occupier simply could not win, even against a few (barely) regular troops, because enough of the locals supported the effort. The French (and Americans) had to learn this again in Viet Nam, and we're going through it once more, a lesson we taught the world in the first place.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 30, 2006 07:33 PMThey congratulate themselves for getting Saddam, (the troubles with which were documented 16 years ago), as if that will somehow make up for this incompetently run occupation.
Now that Saddam is dead, where do I go to get the 3,000 dead U.S. kids and 600,000 dead Iraqis and my trillion dollars back?
Lest they forget, the European head of the CIA told the Pentagon and White House BEFORE Bush's war that Saddam told his senior staff that he had NO WMDs and NO WMD PROGRAMS.
By the way, pseudo-conservative Bushbots, how's that national debt going?
Posted by: Jim on December 30, 2006 09:55 PMA PROUD DAY FOR U.S. AND A LESSON FOR TYRANTS
By RALPH PETERS
NEW YORK POST
December 30, 2006 -- SADDAM Hussein is dead. The mighty dictator met a criminal's end on the gallows. The murderer responsible for 1 1/2 million corpses is just a bag of bones.
For decades, the world pandered to his fantasies, overlooking his brutality in return for strategic advantages or naked profit. Diplomats, including our own, courted him, while the world's democracies and their competitors vied to sell him arms.
Saddam always bluffed - even, fatally, about weapons of mass destruction - but the world declined to call him on his excesses. Massacres went unpunished. His invasions of neighboring states failed to draw serious punishment. He never faced personal consequences until our troops reached Baghdad (a dozen years late).
As long as Saddam paid sufficient bribes and granted the right concessions to the well-connected, the world shut its eyes to his cavalcade of atrocities. Even when his soldiers raped Kuwait, the United Nations barely summoned the will to expel his military - and the alliance led by the United States declined to liberate Iraq itself from a tyrant with a sea of blood on his hands.
Everything changed in 2003. For all of its later errors in Iraq, the Bush administration altered the course of history for the better.
It may be hard to discern the deeper meaning of our march to Baghdad amid the chaos afflicting Iraq today, but President Bush got a great thing right: He recognized that the age of dictators was ending, that the era of the popular will had arrived. He and his advisers may have underestimated the difficulties involved and misread the nature of that popular will, but they put us back on the moral side of history.
Bush revealed the bankruptcy of the European-designed system of international relations. An unspoken code agreed between kings and czars, emperors and kaisers, had protected rulers - however monstrous - for centuries, while ignoring the suffering of the masses. The result was that any Third World thug who seized a presidential palace could ravage his country as long as his crimes remained within his "sovereign" borders.
Supported by other English-speaking democracies, Bush acted. Breaking Europe's cynical rules, our forces invaded a dictatorship to liberate its population.
And suddenly, the world was no longer safe for tyrants.
No matter the policy failures in the wake of Baghdad's fall, the destruction of Saddam's regime remains a historical turning point. When our troops later dragged the dictator out of a fetid hole, every other president-for-life shivered at the image.
Tonight, none of those other oppressors will sleep well. They may try to console themselves that America is failing in Iraq, that we've learned our lessons. But no matter what they tell themselves, they'll never feel safe again.
We set a noble precedent, and the critics who insist that deposing Saddam was a mistake are rushing to a very premature judgment.
We did a great thing by overthrowing Saddam. We may have done it poorly, but we did it. We also revealed the hypocrisy of those governments who sold out their professed values for oil money (and pathetically cheaply, too).
From Paris and Berlin through Moscow and Beijing, many will never forgive us. We should be honored.
Was justice done when the trapdoor opened under Saddam's feet? In a clinical sense, yes. But such an easy death was far too kind. He should have been turned loose, naked and handcuffed, in the central square of Halabja, where the survivors of his most notorious poison gas attack could have ripped his flesh with their bare hands.
But we live in a civilized community of nations. Bloodthirsty dictators must be executed humanely - and over the protests of human-rights advocates who insist they shouldn't be executed at all.
Still, Saddam's death was a last humiliation for him. He lived long enough to see his sons die, destroying his dynastic dreams. And long enough to discover that all those Iraqis jumping up and down and crying "We will die for you, Saddam!" didn't really mean it.
Given all of the recent violence in Iraq, it's remarkable how little has been committed in support of Saddam - occasional demonstrations on his home ground, and little else. There'll be a hiccup of violence now, but even his fellow Baathists have been seeking to regain power for themselves, not for their erstwhile master. (And it's easy to picture their relief at the death of the man they, too, once had to fear.)
The various factions of Iraq are fighting for many things - but Saddam hasn't been one of them. Sycophantic lawyers - Western and Iraqi - doubtless whispered that the people still supported him, that they and his Western friends would never let him hang. (He must have thought ruefully of Ramsey Clark as the noose tightened around his neck.)
Saddam's pathetic grandeur lies in ruins. Millions will celebrate his death; few will mourn. In the end, the all-powerful dictator was just a delusional old man in a cage insisting, "I am the president of Iraq!"
Of course, the Middle East has an ongoing problem with reality. Conspiracy theorists who insisted that the United States was keeping Saddam alive to restore him to power as part of a complex plot will now suggest that one of Saddam's doubles went to the gallows, that the dictator still lives, held in reserve by mysterious forces.
But Saddam Hussein is dead, condemned to death by an Iraqi court. Even the die-hards will figure it out in time.
Again, we can be proud that the United States of America brought him down. And that no dictator can ever feel entirely safe again.
President Bush changed the world. For all of today's carnage and confusion, and despite the appalling policy errors after Baghdad fell, the future will show that the change was for the better.
again, well said... if only our own America haters within our own country would listen... but they won't, for they find persverse pleasure in blaming their President and countrymen.
Rep. McDermott served in the U.S. Navy during the American War in Viet Nam. He opposed invading Iraq. Mr. Medved avoided military service. "Dulce bellum inexpertis." ('War is sweet to those who know it not.')
" SADAM was AT WAR with us period. Deny that big shot."
When and where did he attack us? When did he declare war? Al-Qa'eda attacked us on 9/11; Saddam had nothing to do with it. We've let Al-Qa'eda and their Taliban hosts regenerate in Afghanistan while our soldiers die in Iraq. And for what? The benefit of radical Islamists in Iran. Huge swaths of Iraq are now under Sharia law, just like in Iran. We've paid 3,000 lives and one trillion dollars for this. Why?
Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 30, 2006 11:15 PM"We tried the Nazis and Imperial Japanese commanders for invading countries which had not threatened them. Saddam's evil regime did not threaten us; heck, the Reagan Administration even supported him. (Did Ronald Reagan hate America? How about Donald Rumsfeld?)"
Well then by your standard we'd have to hsng FDR because he attacked Germany even though it never attacked us.
McDermott was a psychologist that spent the entire Vietnam War in California in an air conditioned office. Saying he "served in the war" is a lie. He served in a cushy stateside position while others such as John McCain served in the Navy during the Vietnam War.
Posted by: pbj on December 30, 2006 11:56 PMGermany's dictator declared war upon us, after Germany's ally attacked our Navy. Under international law, that sufficed for us to prosecute war against Germany. When did Saddam declare war upon us? When did his allies attack us? (Did he even have allies?)
Again, we've paid 3,000 lives and one trillion dollars to see sections of Iraq under sharia law. Why?
Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 30, 2006 11:58 PMWhich is why I didn't say it. As you yourself quoted me:
"Rep. McDermott served in the U.S. Navy during the American War in Viet Nam. "
He was (and is) a psychiatrist, not a psychologist, and his job was to evaluate Americans who'd served in Viet Nam. He had to decide whether to send them back into war or not. He saw how the war had hurt them, and whether they could take any more of that horrific experience. I would not ever want to do that job.
One of my female co-workers has a son, a Marine who served in Fallujah. (Or, "that hell," as she describes it.) That city, last I checked, was under sharia law. He fought so that women like his mother now cannot work like she does. Why?
Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 31, 2006 12:07 AMWell technically, we had a cease fire arrangement from the gulf war which he spent 14 years violating.
And as noted, he was allies with an enemy that attacked us.
Finally, his plotting to asassinate a sitting US president was fairly unfriendly, wasn't it?
But this is moot, he was executed for the least smidgeon of the tip of the iceberg of his brutality against his own people.
He had no defense. Everyone knew it.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Posted by: LSU on December 31, 2006 03:05 AMThanks for sharing that.
Posted by: LSU on December 31, 2006 03:06 AMWhen and where did he attack us? When did he declare war?
Saddam attacked Kuwait who had a defensive agreement with the US. An attack against Kuwait was in effect an attack against the US, we were obligated by agreements to defend Kuwait.
Paddy Whack stated:
Al-Qa'eda attacked us on 9/11; Saddam had nothing to do with it.
Saddam supported terrorists in direct defiance of UN resolution 687 which was the agreement to end hostilities against Iraq, an agreement that Saddam and the Iraqi government agreed to in order to end the hostilieties during the first gulf war. An agreement that Saddam refused to abide by.
Paddy Whack stated:
We've let Al-Qa'eda and their Taliban hosts regenerate in Afghanistan while our soldiers die in Iraq.
Regenerate? While there is some resurgance in Taliban activities it a far cry from the level before our invasion of Afghanistan. Remember Afghanistan has held it's own democratic elections, agreed on a constuitution and elected it's own leaders since the Taliban were removed. This makes your statement above seem quite ludicrous.
Paddy Whack stated:
And for what? The benefit of radical Islamists in Iran. Huge swaths of Iraq are now under Sharia law, just like in Iran. We've paid 3,000 lives and one trillion dollars for this. Why?
Because we are at war with radical muslims that is why. Our enemies are out to destroy us and everything we stand for, listen to what they say and look at their actions.
We have fifth columnists like yourself that work in their behalf. Fifth columnists that question everything that we do and refuse to question the motive and actions of our enemies.
Who is our real enemy? Is it the terrorists or people like yourself that give them comfort? I say it is both. As long as we have people like yourself who do not realize or acknowledge that we are at war with people who will use all methods and means to kill us we are in grave danger. We cannot fight a politically correct war and win against an enemy that has no such politically correct boundaries.
When are people like yourself going to wake up? Will it take a nuke detonation in one of our major cities before you and your fifth column friends decide it is politically correct to protect our country at any cost?
When and where did he attack us? When did he declare war?
Saddam attacked Kuwait who had a defensive agreement with the US. An attack against Kuwait was in effect an attack against the US, we were obligated by agreements to defend Kuwait.
Let us not forget his possible involvement in the original WTC bombing in 1993.
Posted by: Mike H on December 31, 2006 09:51 AMI ran a quick google and came up wit5h something in mid 04 that made that assertion.
But of course, since then, most of the islamofascist scum has been driven out.
My advice to you?
Make "last time I checked" a little more frequent then 2 years ago.
Posted by: Hinton on December 31, 2006 10:31 AMAbdul Yasin the WTC 1 bomb maker escaped to Iraq and was employed by the Iraqi government at the time of the invasion.
Ramzi Yousef the mastermind of WTC1 was a career Iraqi intelligence operator.
And lets not forget the killer of Leon Klinghoffer, abbu abbas. Remember him? He was also living in Baghdad under the protection of the Saddam regime.
How easy it is to forget Saddam's ties to terrorism and what led up to the Invasion of Iraq. Everyone remembers the WMD issue and the lack of them found in Iraq but WMD's were only part of the reason we invaded. Everything else is forgotten except the one issue that proved to be based on bad intelligence.
How easy it is to forget.....
Posted by: Cliff on December 31, 2006 10:37 AM"We took full advantage of one dictatorship attacking another, and we eventually finished both of them off. If we bowed to expediency, at least it worked."
Expediency? It took 45 YEARS to finish off the "other" dictatorship. And what about the generations of eastern Europeans who were condemned to live under communist dictators during those 45 years? And the millions who died as the Soviets sponsored directly and indirectly communist revolutionary forces in dozens of countries around the world? What portion of the 33,000 AMERICANS killed in Korea and the 50,000+ AMERICANS killed in Vietnam can be attributed to Soviet support (especially advisors and military hardware) resulting from this "expedient" decision?
You've got a serious problem with perspective. You might want to take a history class. Also, by your own criterion, you might want to wait until 2025 (or 2045) to see how this all turns out.
Posted by: Ex-WA on December 31, 2006 10:56 AMThe United States has made repeated attempts on Castro's life; therefore, Cuba can attack the United States any time later. Somehow, I think not.
Whether we ever had a defensive agreement with Kuwait was a very hot topic in August of 1990; that invasion was reversed in early 1991, and Iraq had made no moves against Kuwait since.
The practical effect of our invasion and occupation has been to increase Iran's influence in the region, put parts of Iraq under sharia law, and detract from our proper anti-terrorist work in Afghanistan, whose Taliban government did have involvement in 9/11. Adding more troops to Iraq will do what -- make each of these problems worse?
If we're not going to eradicate the Islamic extremists in Afghanistan-- and our current Administration has shown little to no interest in fighting Islamic extremists over there -- we should at least refrain from assisting the Islamists in Iran and Iraq. But why listen to reason now? You've ignored it for four years and running already, so I guess it's working for you, hm? What's 3,000 dead American soldiers, a missing trillion (!) dollars, when we've acheived such great glory?
Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 31, 2006 11:50 AMOur imperial military misadventure in Viet Nam harmed our prosecution of the Cold War. In my history class, I learned that the Cold War ended even with all of Viet Nam under Communist rule. Therefore, preventing a Communist take-over of south Viet Nam was irrelevant to winning the Cold War. We should have avoided that conflict entirely.
Our invasion and occupation of Iraq have harmed our efforts against Islamic extremism in Afghanistan. On that basis alone I oppose it, because our efforts should go against the Taliban, Al-Qa'eda, etc. Squandering more military strength in Iraq will not improve the situation in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 31, 2006 12:03 PM
Sept 11, 2001 his Al Qaeda allies attacked us. Furthermore, his sons declared war when they called for attacks against America in their state owned newspaper following the Sept 11 attacks.
And please tell me when Bosnia attacked or declared war upon us? Under your standards, Clinton should be hanged.
And Paddy, how is Truman's Korean War going? Have we won that one yet? It's only been 45+ years!!!
Apparently Carter and Clinton thought the way to win it was to give the North Koreans nuclear technology. How is that strategy working out for ya?
Posted by: pbj on December 31, 2006 04:03 PMYour history class apparently forgot to tell you that JFK started that war. He was also responsible fro the assassination of legitimately elected president Diem in 1963. It is fitting Kennedy also died by the same means he chose for others to die.
Posted by: pbj on December 31, 2006 04:08 PMhttp://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/JFK+in+History/Vietnam.htm
"A few weeks later, on November 1, 1963, in a coup given tacit approval by the Kennedy administration, the South Vietnamese government was overthrown. President Diem, refusing an American offer of safety contingent upon his resignation, was assassinated. "
Posted by: pbj on December 31, 2006 04:11 PMMore Republican who sent out nation to war have served in the military than Democrats. C'mon Paddy challenge me on it! I DARE ya!
Posted by: pbj on December 31, 2006 04:22 PMWilliam Jefferson Clinton - Coward who never served and even protested his nation on foreign soil. Illegally sent troops into Bosnia without UN approval without Bosnia having attacked us.
Posted by: pbj on December 31, 2006 04:25 PM
What do you have against Governor Rick Perry, an air force veteran?
The point is you are arrogant in believing that you know the answers now. Yes, we must pick our conflicts carefully, but we can't yet judge Iraq as a lost cause.
Posted by: Ex-WA on January 1, 2007 09:05 AMHere's a question: Why did Walter Cronkite lie to the nation about the result of the 10th offensive in Vietnam back in 1968 by saying we were losing - instead of the actual fact that we were winning ?
Face it, it happened and was a major turning point in that war.
(I was opposed to that war, but was too young to understand all of the ramifications then. However, looking back on that event, that lie helped embolden the enemy and was a big blow to the morale of our troops). Judging Iraq as a lost cause has been done by much of the mainstream media, in an power hungry effort by the media to emulate what Cronkite was able to do - in a disgraceful way ! That is why many on the right want to call your ilk traitors - even when they may disagree with the principle of this war. Why do you and the mainstream media want to embolden the enemy ?
The battle lines have been drawn; Welcome to the culture war !
Posted by: KS on January 2, 2007 07:47 PM