Enough said
 

Okay. That is precious. Why it isn't an IotD, I will never know. (Until Tony tells us.)

Fuggit, you're right!

No, this is nothing but propaganda! They were, uh, forced to display the sign. Yeah, that's it!

When making silly anti-US conspiracy theory stuff, propaganda is spelled "propagadna". GET IT RIGHT! :)

Those two must have learned English from Brits. Now we'll have to re-educate them to use the word "jerk offs" from now on.

I noticed the DOW was up 31 after they displayed their sign.

The one thing that we don't see is Giraldo holding the Sig on the guys while they unwillingly smile for the camera. :)

Yes! We have now solved all of Iraqs problems and eliminated all potential terrorism for all time. I feel better now. Lets blow up some more kids, hopefully Iranians next time, I hate Iranians. You know they're thinking about pulling something, 911 must be avenged.

Wow, the "H uman shields" certainly are beefy. I wonder if they work out?

From that link: "He did not know the area where he lived was surrounded by military installations"

Guess Saddam made a slight miscalculation in where he was locating his military installations, huh?

I think I've just found the way to end all wars. We'll build military installations in civilian areas exclusively, and then no one will bomb them, and they'll simply throw up their hands and leave, saying, "Ah heck, they've got us there...good one, (your enemy's name here)."

The fact that this poor child was horribly disfigured is testament first and foremost to Saddam's utter disregard for human life in his country, and the fact that he placed his own survival and power above the welfare of his subjects. They are as so much cannon fodder to him. I assure you the thought of this maimed innocent has not as much as crossed the murdering asshole's mind. How, exactly, do you propose that we cure the disease that is Saddam Hussein without resorting to warfare? How do we dispose of such a human dung heap and do no other harm in the process?

Maybe we should have just left him in power, but that's no guarantee that the child in that article wouldn't have ended up with no arms anyway, not with Saddam running the show.

First, obviously I was in a pretty bad mood yesterday. I felt the need to piss in everybodies corn flakes because of what had become a pretty one sided photo war here. Rucita and Benny stepped up though which, if they'll stick around, took some guts. In my mind, we've come through the easiest part of this campaign so celebration while understandable is pretty damn premature.

Nobodies arguing that Saddam isn't total human debris, however, Bush ran on the idea of a restrained foreign policy. What changed about Iraq? Nothing. 911, which has never been linked to Hussein, opened the door for some of Bush's advisors to push their militarist agenda for our country, not the agenda Bush ran on but rather a complete disavowal of that agenda.

Does (Did) Hussein have nasty weapons programs? Sure. What country doesn't? Has he ever shown the desire to use them against anyone strong enough to respond? No. He is, like most bullies, a coward at heart and by all accounts pretty concerned with his own survival. He is (was) an Iraqi problem. Did he use Chem weapons against Americans during GW1? Nope. Did he use them against Israel? Nope.

What should America have done about Saddam? Nothing. The British Empire created Iraq with all its problems. Can an American Empire resolve the Arabs problems for them? Not likely. Can we turn America into a giant Israel with enemies behind every rock. Easily.

If Iraqis don't want a dictator, they need to step up and shoot the son of a bachelor. If no Iraqi thinks freeing his country is worth sacrificing his life, how is his freedom worth one American Marines life or one poor kids arms who happens to live in the wrong neighborhood. As we descend into this war on terror, I think we should reflect on what becomes of the America once known as a beacon of freedom as it continues to occupy countries all over the globe, imposing our administrations view of freedom. Does the child with no arms and abdominal burns feel free trapped in his hospital bed.

Hint sadly taken.

You are still the man UT. We're just seeing this thing differently and I pray your vision of it is spot on and mine is corrupted.

For me, this thing highlights and chafes the differences between us like I imagine nothing else could. I have about an hour's worth of walkin' around thinkin' time about what you said, but I won't set it down to a post. It wouldn't get us anywhere, and perhaps it's time to move on. (and the chorus strikes a hallelujah)

I don't disagree with a word you say Griff, and I fully acknowledge the evil thing that war is.

I wish there was a better way to do what needs to be done, and I can't think of it.

Your opinion is eloquently rendered and taken at face value by me, who appreciates your point of view and almost wishes that I could share it completely.

The lessons of how it can be done without war have been demonstrated numerous times. But because there was no war, then a public informed by hype newscasters such as Liza Thomas Laurie never learns how powerful and successful diplomacy really was.

In a previous post, I noted how Milosevik was disarmed and removed from power without all out war. A man whose objectives, like Saddam, were regional domination while avoiding all conflict with major powers. Milsovik's methods were also torture, concentration camps, racial hatred, massive police state, and massacres even by taking people right out from under the protection of 200 Dutch soldiers. Milosevik's power was equally as strong and absolute.

How was Milosevik defeated? Weapons far more powerful than (but not as immediate as) Third Corp, 7th British, and 1st Marine Division. Instead we used Richard Holbrook. Gen Wesley Clark, Canada's Gen Rose, the UN, and other were used. Selective military force such as the British French Rapid Reaction Force and a short Nato air war in Kosovo were also used, when necessary, to add the explanation point to a sentence. Rumania and Bulgaria cooperated extensively. Even Greece was forced to cooperate.

Serbia was conquered without major invasion - without the hundreds of American casulties and without forcing the US economy into recession. We instead used diplomacy to defeat a dictator. It is done too often. Public did not see because smart bombs did not explode.

How well understood is Richard Holbrook's diplomatic campaign? I suspect many here don't even know what Holbrook did let alone know who Holbrook is. For that matter, what is known of the so successful diplomatic campaign by Carter and Clinton that kept 50 or 60 plutonium bombs out of N Korea. Again, diplomacy had been so successful in avoiding war and halting nuclear proliferation - without military invasion. I note military action because Clinton was planning for military action against N Korea when Carter called with a solution. Diplomacy.

War is diplomatic failure. War is what happens when a silly American president says no one is allowed to negotiate with that rouge nation. Unfortunately too many people want results now (also called preemption). They regard negotiation as collusion or collaberation.

We are still fighting for a solution in Serbia as was ongoing a decade ago. Hard liners call that a defeat because the results were not immediate and final - like an all out invasion. But the result is far less expensive, required no outright invasion (and resulting injury to the domestic economy), and does not get the big press. Without big press, too many don't understand how successful diplomacy can be. War is always a failure of diplomacy. That diplomatic failure is too often directly traceable to ignorance of what the other side really wants, impatience, AND some Neanderthal need to solve problems before those problems could even exist.

Then maybe the problem is you don't have imagination enough...

Yeah, that's probably it...