Saddam to Swing

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

He's swung; another milestone passed, and the world shithead count is down by one. It will be emphasized that Iraqis, Saddam's most numerous victims (a butcher's bill of about a million and a half offed for unpopular political opinions, a hanging offense with dictators everywhere, and quite outside Iraqi military casualties, also extensive), were the ones who took him out. Mutterings about the U.S. pulling the strings are, in the end, of no consequence.

Ba'athist spokesmen have threatened to... continue behaving as badly as before should Saddam be hanged.

The death of Saddam does absolutely nothing to legitimize this cluster fuck of an illegitimate, unconstitutional, unwarranted, and idiotic war. Saddam was never a danger to America, but George W. Bush is.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Radar

The death of Saddam does absolutely nothing to legitimize this cluster fuck of an illegitimate, unconstitutional, unwarranted, and idiotic war. Saddam was never a danger to America, but George W. Bush is.

Wrong on all counts, Paul. It's quite constitutional, as the Constitution contains not a word against a President fighting a war without Congressional declaration, as does the hundred-forty-plus historical precedents of the Prez sending the troops in. No one has ever breathed a word of indictment against such action, and it is unlikely ever to start, flexibility in foreign policy being handier than bondage, and the general run of America's enemies aren't exactly libertarians anyway.

For starters, stop calling a campaign within a general war a war of itself. That is intellectually lazy, technically inaccurate (and we all know how you loathe inaccuracy, right?), and a propaganda trope of the anti-American, antipatriot, defeat America now lobby. Not a crew you'd want to associate with if you have any self respect [insert Walt Kelly cowbirds pic here]. Surely you think you have more self respect than I do, Paul! Act, then, like it.

The whelming of an ultra-anti-libertarian creature such as the dictator Saddam is by definition warranted, and moral, and is likely also to be wise. This, Paul, is why I consider my views more libertarian, in the real way, than yours.

He was most particularly a danger to our friends in the region, and in that region, friends are what we want, no? We should not be leaving our friends, however iffy they be, in the lurch. This is what costs us political capital, and I think this not merely profligate, but unconscionable. That we hit Saddam now, instead of waiting for the guy to enlarge into an extra-big threat comparable in percentage of world economy to Hitler's Germany, is simply wisdom. That it's wisdom you can't see isn't a deficiency on my part, but more a demonstration of your inflexible thinking, already pretty well shown in these pages.

At bottom, Paul, W thinks more like you than you'd acknowledge, as did Reagan, also not acknowledged. He does, however, have the responsibility of prosecuting a general war, thrust upon us by bigots who are mad at about two thirds of humanity for not being their brand of Muslim, and at which prosecution I fear our political party would prove miserably incompetent. For the time being.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

He was most particularly a danger to our friends in the region, and in that region, friends are what we want, no?

Now that is some impressive irony right there.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Now that is some impressive irony right there.

No irony. You've given a remarkably incorrect response.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

No irony. You've given a remarkably incorrect response.

None at all? I find at least a little, especially when the usual line I hear from many is that "violence/war is what got us into this mess" when, in this cluster of the past thirty some odd years, it was "making friends".

I can't wait to find out who we'll be friends with next in the Middle East. What friendly dictator/rebel/revolutionary/resistance do you think we're going to give money/weapons/training to this year?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

None at all?

"Some says yes, and some says absolutely." -- Walt Kelly

I can't wait to find out who we'll be friends with next in the Middle East. What friendly dictator/rebel/revolutionary/resistance do you think we're going to give money/weapons/training to this year?

And in place of this (pretty much the standard for international diplomacy for the past five centuries or so) you'd do... what?

That's the problem with the people who take this approach to What To Do About It All -- damned seldom do workable alternatives emerge from these people's minds.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And in place of this (pretty much the standard for international diplomacy for the past five centuries or so) you'd do... what?

In Iraq? Absolutely nothing. It wasn't any of our business. Regardless of whichever of the myriad of reasons you happen to subscribe to for our "need" to invade Iraq, application of any of them as "standard international diplomacy" is about as intelligent as the current desire of The United States to fight an ideology as an army. Applying it in one instance is going to have negative repercussions for decades to come. Applying it everywhere would be suicide.

I almost said we're the ones that started this mess decades ago, but the situation we've entangled ourselves in and cannot remove ourselves from until we build a stable country, essentially from the ground up, was absolutely avoidable.

Again, I'd love to know who you think we're going to "make friends with" in the Middle East next and how you think we should do it. I tend to think we could have made fewer enemies by leaving Iraq alone.