Today at the Forum: Saddam's fate and year-end letters

Friday, December 29, 2006

Saddam's fate and year-end letters

A two-part blog:

Deposed Iraq president Saddam Hussein has been hanged for atrocities committed against Iraqis and others.

So let's continue the conversation here. Do you think Saddam's sentence was just? Will it have an impact on the situation in Iraq? How will his execution influence the perception of the United States?

Finally, Sunday's Forum section will take a look at the year's commentary from you. We printed more than 4,000 letters, guest columns and other types of comment in 2006. There's still time to tell us what interested you most last in 2006.

Consider telling us here...

51 Comments:

at 11:10 PM, December 29, 2006

Anonymous said...

BBC radio just reported that Saddam was hustled off to the gallows & he's dead. Gone. Just deserves.

at 10:19 AM, December 30, 2006

Brah Coon said...

So we hanged him, huh? Ermm, well " We" didn't hang him - our puppet gov. in Baghdad did.

Let's see. He said he had no WMD and he was telling the truth. He said it was necessary to kill rebel Shi'a and Kurd factions in order to hold the false " nation " of Iraq together - again he was telling the truth.

I don't know why we ..ack! I mean THEY, hanged him. But I'm pretty sure it wasn't for being a liar.

Oh yeah, he was an Evil Madman. I keep forgetting.

at 10:37 AM, December 30, 2006

Anonymous said...

Saddam's hanging prevents a collaboration to affect his escape and resurgence to power. So this is good.
His hanging will not have an effect on the Iraqi War.

at 10:46 AM, December 30, 2006

Anonymous said...

The relative quick execution of the Hussein hanging sentence further demonstrates the differences between USA and Muslim cultures and military policies.

The USA will continue to lose the war in Iraq and the wider War on Terrorism, if we insist on limiting US troop fighting tactics to our lame military “white glove” tactics, as opposed to the Muslim philosophy of ‘win at all costs’.

at 12:05 PM, December 30, 2006

Anonymous said...

Saddam's hanging will have absolutely no effect on Iraq. Iraq has forgotten him and the current violence is attributed to different sects of Islam fighting each other. The civil war is happening now. The U.S needs to either bring all the troops home, or send in everyone and take over the entire Middle East. However, it's quite clear we have lost in Iraq. Let's face it. Round one goes to the terrorists/U.S.A. haters.

at 2:08 PM, December 30, 2006

Anonymous said...

Saddam Hussein's trial was almost certainly not just. While the end may have been just for him, how about all of his victims? Part of the justice process is facing your crimes. Because of the United States' complicity in the majority of those crimes (looking the other way throughout the 80's and selling him the things he needed to make the weapons that he used) we only allowed prosecutors to use one incident against him--when he killed over 100 Kurds in a small village after someone from that village tried to assassinate him.

Where is the justice for the thousands more that he killed? This Shia and Sunnis he killed? How is Iraq supposed to heal when only one small ethnic faction gets its justice and it is denied to everyone else?

This trial was a sham, and everyone knows it. While I'm sure the Shia will shed no tears over Mr. Hussein's death, I'm sure they would have loved their day in court to air their grievances. However, because of the Reagan administration's lasseiz-faire attitude towards the horrible actions of Mr. Hussein, the current U.S. government does not wish for any of these crimes to come to light.

It was the same thing with Pinochet.

I don't care much for hanging Saddam Hussein, because I don't believe it changes anything. The Iraqis may have been the ones who hung him, but it was the United States behind the scenes pulling the strings.

To me, that is wrong. I think Hussein would better serve Iraq and us now by being locked away in a secret prison for the rest of his life rather than run the riks of his martyrdom. Now his death may cause even more deaths. Ironic, no?

Saddam Hussein's hanging wasn't even worth the rope. The United States put on this sham trial of one atrocity and had him hanged as quickly as the quasi-legal process would allow so that he couldn't bring to light all of the other atrocities (including the Iraq-Iran war atrocities) that he committed with our tacit approval.

I don't know how many people understand this. My guess is very few.

at 2:52 PM, December 31, 2006

Anonymous said...

OK I'll start. Why should we listen to the opinions of PNACers such as Kristol and Kagan regarding escalation, let's call it what it is. Surge is doublespeak. PNACers have been wrong about everything they predicted regarding Iraq.

If you don't know who and what PNACers are I suggest you do some googling before you weigh in.
The naive idea that America can determine the outcome of Iraq by willful wishing is ludicrous. We do not control the outcome and those who suggest we should just kill our way to victory are immoral.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/top-ten-myths-about-iraq-2006-1.html

Top Ten Myths about Iraq 2006

1. Myth number one is that the United States "can still win" in Iraq. Of course, the truth of this statement, frequently still made by William Kristol and other Neoconservatives, depends on what "winning" means. But if it means the establishment of a stable, pro-American, anti-Iranian government with an effective and even-handed army and police force in the near or even medium term, then the assertion is frankly ridiculous. The Iraqi "government" is barely functioning. The parliament was not able to meet in December because it could not attain a quorum. Many key Iraqi politicians live most of the time in London, and much of parliament is frequently abroad. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki does not control large swathes of the country, and could give few orders that had any chance of being obeyed. The US military cannot shore up this government, even with an extra division, because the government is divided against itself. Most of the major parties trying to craft legislation are also linked to militias on the streets who are killing one another. It is over with. Iraq is in for years of heavy political violence of a sort that no foreign military force can hope to stop.

The United States cannot "win" in the sense defined above. It cannot. And the blindly arrogant assumption that it can win is calculated to get more tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and more thousands of American soldiers and Marines badly wounded or killed. Moreover, since Iraq is coming apart at the seams under the impact of our presence there, there is a real danger that we will radically destabilize it and the whole oil-producing Gulf if we try to stay longer.

2. "US military sweeps of neighborhoods can drive the guerrillas out." The US put an extra 15,000 men into Baghdad this past summer, aiming to crush the guerrillas and stop the violence in the capital, and the number of attacks actually increased. This result comes about in part because the guerrillas are not outsiders who come in and then are forced out. The Sunni Arabs of Ghazaliya and Dora districts in the capital are the "insurgents." The US military cannot defeat the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement or "insurgency" with less than 500,000 troops, based on what we have seen in the Balkans and other such conflict situations. The US destroyed Falluja, and even it and other cities of al-Anbar province are not now safe! The US military leaders on the ground have spoken of the desirability of just withdrawing from al-Anbar to Baghdad and giving up on it. In 2003, 14 percent of Sunni Arabs thought it legitimate to attack US personnel and facilities. In August, 2006, over 70 percent did. How long before it is 100%? Winning guerrilla wars requires two victories, a military victory over the guerrillas and a winning of the hearts and minds of the general public, thus denying the guerrillas support. The US has not and is unlikely to be able to repress the guerrillas, and it is losing hearts and minds at an increasing and alarming rate. They hate us, folks. They don't want us there.

3. The United States is best off throwing all its support behind the Iraqi Shiites. This is the position adopted fairly consistently by Marc Reuel Gerecht. Gerecht is an informed and acute observer whose views I respect even when I disagree with them. But Washington policy-makers should read Daniel Goleman's work on social intelligence. Goleman points out that a good manager of a team in a corporation sets up a win/win framework for every member of the team. If you set it up on a win/lose basis, so that some are actively punished and others "triumph," you are asking for trouble. Conflict is natural. How you manage conflict is what matters. If you listen to employees' grievances and try to figure out how they can be resolved in such a way that everyone benefits, then you are a good manager.

Gerecht, it seems to me, sets up a win/lose model in Iraq. The Shiites and Kurds win it all, and the Sunni Arabs get screwed over. Practically speaking, the Bush policy has been Gerechtian, which in my view has caused all the problems. We shouldn't have thought of our goal as installing the Shiites in power. Of course, Bush hoped that those so installed would be "secular," and that is what Wolfowitz and Chalabi had promised him. Gerecht came up with the ex post facto justification that even the religious Shiites are moving toward democracy via Sistani. But democracy cannot be about one sectarian identity prevailing over, and marginalizing others.

The Sunni Arabs have demonstrated conclusively that they can act effectively as spoilers in the new Iraq. If they aren't happy, no one is going to be. The US must negotiate with the guerrilla leaders and find a win/win framework for them to come in from the cold and work alongside the Kurds and the religious Shiites. About this, US Ambassador in Baghdad Zalmay Khalilzad has been absolutely right.

4. "Iraq is not in a civil war," as Jurassic conservative Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly insists. There is a well-established social science definition of civil war put forward by Professor J. David Singer and his colleagues: "Sustained military combat, primarily internal, resulting in at least 1,000 battle-deaths per year, pitting central government forces against an insurgent force capable of effective resistance, determined by the latter's ability to inflict upon the government forces at least 5 percent of the fatalities that the insurgents sustain." (Errol A. Henderson and J. David Singer, "Civil War in the Post-Colonial World, 1946-92," Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 37, No. 3, May 2000.)" See my article on this in Salon.com. By Singer's definition, Iraq has been in civil war since the Iraqi government was reestablished in summer of 2004. When I have been around political scientists, as at the ISA conference, I have found that scholars in that field tend to accept Singer's definition.

5. "The second Lancet study showing 600,000 excess deaths from political and criminal violence since the US invasion is somehow flawed." Les Roberts replies here to many of the objections that were raised. See also the transcript of the Kucinich-Paul Congressional hearings on the subject. Many critics refer to the numbers of dead reported in the press as counter-arguments to Roberts et al. But "passive reporting" such as news articles never captures more than a fraction of the casualties in any war. I see deaths reported in the Arabic press all the time that never show up in the English language wire services. And, a lot of towns in Iraq don't have local newspapers and many local deaths are not reported in the national newspapers.

6. "Most deaths in Iraq are from bombings." The Lancet study found that the majority of violent deaths are from being shot.

7. "Baghdad and environs are especially violent but the death rate is lower in the rest of the country." The Lancet survey found that levels of violence in the rest of the country are similar to that in Baghdad (remember that the authors included criminal activities such as gang and smuggler turf wars in their statistics). The Shiite south is spared much Sunni-Shiite communal fighting, but criminal gangs, tribal feuds, and militias fight one another over oil and antiquities smuggling, and a lot of people are getting shot down there, too.

8. "Iraq is the central front in the war on terror." From the beginning of history until 2003 there had never been a suicide bombing in Iraq. There was no al-Qaeda in Baath-ruled Iraq. When Baath intelligence heard that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi might have entered Iraq, they grew alarmed at such an "al-Qaeda" presence and put out an APB on him! Zarqawi's so-called "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" was never "central" in Iraq and was never responsible for more than a fraction of the violent attacks. This assertion is supported by the outcome of a US-Jordanian operation that killed Zarqawi this year. His death had no impact whatsoever on the level of violence. There are probably only about 1,000 foreign fighters even in Iraq, and most of them are first-time volunteers, not old-time terrorists. The 50 major guerrilla cells in Sunni Arab Iraq are mostly made up of Iraqis, and are mainly: 1) Baathist or neo-Baathist, 2) Sunni revivalist or Salafi, 3) tribally-based, or 4) based in city quarters. Al-Qaeda is mainly a boogey man, invoked in Iraq on all sides, but possessing little real power or presence there. This is not to deny that radical Sunni Arab volunteers come to Iraq to blow things (and often themselves) up. They just are not more than an auxiliary to the big movements, which are Iraqi.

9. "The Sunni Arab guerrillas in places like Ramadi will follow the US home to the American mainland and commit terrorism if we leave Iraq." This assertion is just a variation on the invalid domino theory. People in Ramadi only have one beef with the United States. Its troops are going through their wives' underwear in the course of house searches every day. They don't want the US troops in their town or their homes, dictating to them that they must live under a government of Shiite clerics and Kurdish warlords (as they think of them). If the US withdrew and let the Iraqis work out a way to live with one another, people in Ramadi will be happy. They are not going to start taking flight lessons and trying to get visas to the US. This argument about following us, if it were true, would have prevented us from ever withdrawing from anyplace once we entered a war there. We'd be forever stuck in the Philippines for fear that Filipino terrorists would follow us back home. Or Korea (we moved 15,000 US troops out of South Korea not so long ago. Was that unwise? Are the thereby liberated Koreans now gunning for us?) Or how about the Dominican Republic? Haiti? Grenada? France? The argument is a crock.

10. "Setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is a bad idea." Bush and others in his administration have argued that setting such a timetable would give a significant military advantage to the guerrillas fighting US forces and opposed to the new government. That assertion makes sense only if there were a prospect that the US could militarily crush the Sunni Arabs. There is no such prospect. The guerrilla war is hotter now than at any time since the US invasion. It is more widely supported by more Sunni Arabs than ever before. It is producing more violent attacks than ever before. Since we cannot defeat them short of genocide, we have to negotiate with them. And their first and most urgent demand is that the US set a timetable for withdrawal before they will consider coming into the new political system. That is, we should set a timetable in order to turn the Sunni guerrillas from combatants to a political negotiating partner. Even Sunni politicians cooperating with the US make this demand. They are disappointed with the lack of movement on the issue. How long do they remain willing to cooperate? In addition, 131 Iraqi members of parliament signed a demand that the US set a timetable for withdrawal. (138 would be a simple majority.) It is a a major demand of the Sadr Movement. In fact, the 32 Sadrist MPs withdrew from the ruling United Iraqi Alliance coalition temporarily over this issue.

In my view, Shiite leaders such as Abdul Aziz al-Hakim are repeatedly declining to negotiate in good faith with the Sunni Arabs or to take their views seriously. Al-Hakim knows that if the Sunnis give him any trouble, he can sic the Marines on them. The US presence is making it harder for Iraqi to compromise with Iraqi, which is counterproductive.

Think Progress points out that in 1999, Governor George W. Bush criticized then President Clinton for declining to set a withdrawal timetable for Kosovo, saying "Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

I am sure many of your readers will label me a moonbat who hates America. Whatever. I consider myself an informed realist.

Finally Wesley Clark a 4 star general summed it up quite nicely:

We are not going to win the War on Terror just by killing people abroad, even if they are terrorists. It's not enough... It's not World War II where there were certain number of enemy formations, or factories to produce aircraft and once you eliminated these you could be pretty sure the situation would appear different to the enemy leadership. This is not that kind of conflict.

When we kill people we make enemies! And when we kill the wrong people, it's even worse and less defensible. - 09/06/05

at 1:03 PM, January 01, 2007

Anonymous said...

The situation in Iraq has had nothing to do with Hussein since his fall from power. Although he was reponsible for the deaths of many other people, from a national security stand point it would have been better for the US to leave him in power and to have used him in order to get the desired results - a safe and secure US with a safe and secure supply of oil. All the excuses given for the war against him and Iraq were BS the moment they rolled off Bush's lying tongue. Bottom line is that there are problems in Iraq today, there will be more tomorrow, and many more still in the future for years to come. If there truly was a valid reason for invading and occupying Iraq, it has never been given in public. It is well past time to end this farce and stop the flow of American blood on Iraqi soil.

at 3:38 PM, January 01, 2007

Brah Coon said...

We long time Cincinnati natives will remember when the " Kool Jazz Festival" existed in name only. That is to say - there was no jazz music at the Kool Jazz Festival for many years.

That is the future of America if people like this rule: ( anon.@10:46 AM, December 30, 2006

" The USA will continue to lose the war in Iraq and the wider War on Terrorism, if we insist on limiting US troop fighting tactics to our lame military “white glove” tactics, as opposed to the Muslim philosophy of ‘win at all cost"

When we must become Saddam to defeat Saddam WE LOSE. When we must destroy America to save it - it's time to do some collective soul searching. When we turn America into a police state, then everybody, including the citizens will be the enemy. When we have to go searching for " the ememy" and find that it is Us --then it is time to start over again.

at 8:36 PM, January 01, 2007

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:08 PM, December 30, 2006 Brian..... at least we know which side you are on.

at 9:05 AM, January 02, 2007

Anonymous said...

It's silly to think that we can control the culture and norms of an Arab and Muslim region, such as the Iraq region, which has 1000's of years of unique history.

We can attempt to help, but with little influence and impact. Ultimately, the people of the region will decide how they will live and govern.

I wish the USA and Bush haters would make up their minds. Do we exert our influence in international affairs and accept this responsibility with uncertain consequences; or do we naively attempt to hide within our USA borders, waiting for the next 9/11?

It’s amazing how you “Monday morning quarterbacks” always seem to get it right. Yet, your opinions and rationale change, determined only by blind allegiance or hatred for which political party is in the White House.

at 9:12 AM, January 02, 2007

Anonymous said...

This death gave peace to a good amount of Iraqis who watched their family members die at his hands. WMD or not, he was an evil force.

Our own American soldiers captured Hussein by a tip-off from a member of his own clan (and killed his evil sons as well). Anyone who claims that we have lost in Iraq IS a USA hater.

at 11:08 AM, January 02, 2007

Anonymous said...

Self loathing pacifists and enemy-collaborators did not win the American Revolutionary War, WW1, WWII, or the Cold War.
The self ordained Righteous opposed the military and our USA interests in these conflicts, as they are opposing the war on Muslim Fundamental Extremists.

Yet, as always this eternally ungrateful lot will welcome the freedoms and privileges that brave men and woman die to preserve for all.

at 11:13 AM, January 02, 2007

Anonymous said...

To Anon 2:52 PM, December 31, 2006 This is a blog. Sometimes in life "more is said with less".

at 12:08 AM, January 03, 2007

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:08

"Self loathing pacifists and enemy-collaborators did not win the American Revolutionary War, WW1, WWII, or the Cold War.
The self ordained Righteous opposed the military and our USA interests in these conflicts, as they are opposing the war on Muslim Fundamental Extremists."

You sir, can try and link our actions in Iraq to the World Wars and the Revolution all you want, but all you are doing is denigrating your sad, flawed, politicized ideology and everyhing that the United States, once upon a time, stood for.

Iraq is no World War I or II. It is no crusade. It is one big, ugly, sticky, bloody lie that has exposed how fearful and unbalanced America's hegemony has made it in the world.

Since we don't have any Russia to fight against and expand our military and its tentacles, new enemies must be created. September 11th was the catalyst, and we took that tragedy and pinned it dishonestly to Iraq, where many, many more people have died in many more tragedies since.

On the plus side, many men here in the United States have profitted quite handsomely, and guess what? They vote (with their dollars) overwhelmingly Republican. This cycle goes on and on, with rich white men, while the less fortunate find themselves targeted occupiers in a hostile land. There is no war now, there is only occupation and a faint hint of nation-building that candidate George W. Bush once promised to avoid at all costs...

War is no longer just; it is Big Business. Get your miniature American flag and get in on the ground floor! We'll get those responsible for the plane attacks! (But do us a favor and conveniently forget the fact that none of the attackers was Iraqi.)

So the questions become: How does fighting for our own freedom corrolate to attacking other countries without being threatened 225 years later?

To what crusade (or entangling foreign alliance, as Washington would surely have called it) will the GOP dedicate our fighting men and women next?

One thing is for sure: it won't be to defend America or its freedoms. It will be used to continue the fear, to attack browner, Muslim peoples in faraway hemispheres. In the process, these wars will open up more places for us to dump our good and services... but fear not! The jingoes and the captains of industries are more than prepared to goose-step into the future together!

Whatever happened to having nothing to fear but fear itself? It is being drowned out by the color-coded terror alert system.

My, how far we have come . . .

at 9:53 AM, January 03, 2007

Brah Coon said...

anon@ 9:12 AM, January 02, 2007

" Anyone who claims that we have lost in Iraq IS a USA hater."

Well partner, if that statment is true - the vast majority of USA citizens are USA haters. Only 9 percent believe the USA will " win" in Iraq.

at 9:59 AM, January 03, 2007

Anonymous said...

To 11:08 Anon. No my dear, we 'pacifists' aren't self-loathers or enemy collaborators, we just loath and are saddened by hate-mongers who think killing anything in site (real threat, hyped or fabricated as the WMD in Iraq) is the only way to resolve a conflict or provide security for our future generations.

at 11:15 AM, January 03, 2007

Anonymous said...

at 9:53 AM, January 03, 2007 alter or abolish said...
anon@ 9:12 AM, January 02, 2007

" Anyone who claims that we have lost in Iraq IS a USA hater."

Well partner, if that statment is true - the vast majority of USA citizens are USA haters. Only 9 percent believe the USA will " win" in Iraq.

Back that number up. I defy you to back that number up

at 12:50 PM, January 03, 2007

Anonymous said...

To alter or abolish:
A majority opinion is not always right.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

at 1:53 PM, January 03, 2007

Anonymous said...

The only thing I loathe is incompetence and torture in the name of the American people.

I can swallow all the excuses for starting this war. If it had been/were run competently, it would be over.

Torture, even with a "legal" opinion from the President's toadies, is always UnAmerican.

at 3:07 PM, January 03, 2007

Brah Coon said...

solorunner -- 9% say " success in iraq ' very likely' "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/11/opinion/polls/main2247797.shtml

To anon -- did I say the majority opinion is always right? Nope I did not.

It's not always wrong either. In fact, it's more often right than wrong.

at 3:20 PM, January 03, 2007

Anonymous said...

Saddam's fate wasn't for OUR benefit...it was for the benefit of the many people he raped, tortured and killed during his reign. Even though we have no reason to feel safer, I'm sure that the Iraqi people DO.

Ding-Dong...the wicked beast is dead. I'm sure Satan was there greeting him.

at 8:33 PM, January 03, 2007

Anonymous said...

With the hanging of Hussein, we created the "Divided States of Muqtada al-Sadr." The people who hung him said that it was done not in the name of Iraq, but a rebel shia cleric who was once the US army's most wanted man in Iraq. (Now, we're negotiating with him! Yay!)

What a farce this all is. What a farce that trial was. Saddam escaped justice by not having to bear witness to the families of his victims. Instead, he was put to death in haste after one short trial in an attempt to brush under the rug the taint that US medddling (over the last few decades) has thrust upon the history of this region.

I weep for the conservative mind. The conservative mind doesn't understand the history or the mindset of the many different peoples and cultures that make up the middle east. Now, America must pay the price for the idealism and political foibles of an elite few at the top.... and baghdad burns on...

at 9:28 PM, January 03, 2007

Anonymous said...

Iraq started as a misguided and mismanaged venture. We are there now. This is fact.

We now can choose to win this battle, as it has developed into part of the "war on terror."

Or we can retreat, provide the jihad portion of this battle a victory, and hunker down for the next attack, as we have done for the past 30 years.

You defeatists may continue to turn the other cheek, as the blows from our enemy increase in magnitude, into nuclear and biological capacity.

at 11:21 AM, January 04, 2007

Brah Coon said...

Anonymous@9:28 PM, January 03, 2007

"You defeatists may continue to turn the other cheek, as the blows from our enemy increase in magnitude, into nuclear and biological capacity. "

Let's look at the words of the man ( defeatist? ) from whom we get the phrase " turn the the other cheek".

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Matthew 5:9

No, we do not " hunker down " and wait to be attacked again, as you suggest we "defeatists" propose. We make peace. There is no " war on terror". That is sloganism and nonsense! There is no impending jihadist world conquest. That is absurd.

We make peace by forging a new foreign policy that is based on the idea that our federal government should act in the best interest of America first!
We stop meddling with the internal affairs of other nations and conflicts of other regions of the world unless it is absolutely in the vital interests of our nation first and foremost.

at 11:35 AM, January 04, 2007

Anonymous said...

It’s sad when you wimps and apologist can't even decide if you are pro or anti Saddam Hussein and the atrocities that he performed.
And when you sympathize and side with Saddam you deserve his same fate.

at 1:10 PM, January 04, 2007

Anonymous said...

Iraq started as a misguided and mismanaged venture. We are there now. This is fact.

We now can choose to win this battle, as it has developed into part of the "war on terror."
-------------------------------------

This is a very misguided viewpoint. The overhwelming majority (95 percent) of those who fight us are fighting us legitimately. They are Iraqis, and they want US gone from their lands. This doesn't make them terrorists. Thats what you don't get. Not all arabs are terrorists. Before the war, there were very few Iraqi terrorists at all, and none that ever directly attacked American soil. But by our insane actions over there, we're definitely sowing the seeds of terror for the future, just as we did in Afghanistan in the 80's. Reagan is to blame for almost all of this! What a legacy of death that man has left behind . . .

at 4:10 PM, January 04, 2007

Anonymous said...

Idealism is a nice discussion. The rest of us live in the real world.

Best wishes on changing human nature and the course of hundreds of thousands of years of human history. We often are not much different from our cavemen ancestors.

Anyone can state survey results. The validity of their representation is another matter.

Should the American Revolutionary War have been undertaken by a minority of revolutionaries? This war was not a popular war by the majority of the inhabitants of North America at that time, if you believe scholars’ historical accounts. I was not present nor were others taking bogus political polls at the time.

Blame Reagan, Bush, Carter, Clinton, USA policy, USA troops, and whoever else you care to use, as an excuse for your sympathetic attitude toward our enemies who want to kill us. I know you believe fervently that we would not have enemies if we did not create them, by your judgment of our foreign interventionist misdeeds.

The world continues on an expedited path to Global interdependencies. We can choose to participate and lead. Your ideal of living within a cocoon but participating only during our own chosen time and event is nonsense.

The reality is that of the top 20+ international conflicts in the world today, a vast majority of these conflicts have a strong common link with a diverse group of radical Muslim fundamentalism. This enemy wants to kill USA citizens, Christians, Jews; and use Jihad as justification and a rally cry for their cause.

Sorry for the long reply. The USA opponents within this blog raised many points.

at 1:40 AM, January 05, 2007

Anonymous said...

Which part of radical terrorists killing innocents in the name of religion confuses the anti-Americans in this post. Saddam should have been hanged for his attacks on Israel and Kuwait. Concentrating the "jihad" inside Iraq gives US a focal target. Too bad current administration doesn't have a clue on how to win a war..and force peace. Reagan, Truman,JFK and FDR could affect change on a global scale. W sends in "peace corps with guns" and we get body count from Vietnam-era news outlets.

How do we "turn the other cheek " to these "insurgents" and not expect them to behead us ?

at 10:08 AM, January 05, 2007

Brah Coon said...

It's strange how the people who support this war tend to see everything and everyone as either good or evil. Black or white. One must support the president and his wars or one hates America. Cut and dried. America must involve herself all over the world or America will be in a "cocoon".

anon@4:10 PM, January 04, 2007 says: " This enemy wants to kill USA citizens, Christians, Jews; and use Jihad as justification and a rally cry for their cause."

Well yeah. If Tibet was occupying thier lands and/or arming those who are - they would want to kill Buddhists. They want to kill Christians and Jews like Indians wanted to kill Cowboys! Like Afghans wanted to kill Ruskies, and so on and so on.

at 10:38 AM, January 05, 2007

Anonymous said...

Alter or abolish:
A foreign policy to promote peace with madmen like Saddam or Osama is a joke. He'd smile, shake hands and then turn around and do the opposite. Could you really trust that North Korea would not develop nuclear bombs even though they signed on the dotted line?

Sometimes you just gotta take the matches out of the baby's hand.

at 10:40 AM, January 05, 2007

Anonymous said...

As a USA opponent I beg to differ a bit with 4:10 Anon as the 20+ conflicts in the world are largely due to one people trying to suppress another or dominate the resources of another people. Sadly, we as Americans have our hands in too many of these. Those who are utilizing terrorism should be sought, caught and justly punished. Just because people fight back suppression or abuse does not make them a terrorist or make them synonymous with an entire people, religion or even country as in the case or Iraq.

at 12:32 PM, January 05, 2007

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, forget the fact that terrorism wasn't a part of Iraq until we sponsored them there!

Every time I hear Cincinnati conservatives speak about the Middle East, I realize more and more that they know less and less what they're talking about.

Terrorism wasn't part of Iraq's MO until we disbanded their huge army and completely took over their country! We are the British in Colonial America! We are the Russians in Afghanistan circa 1980! We are occupiers in a hostile land that wants us gone! The fact that they are willing to fight to expel us doesn't make them terrorists! It makes them self-determined!

Jeeeeeeez, the Bush-supporters in this thread are so blind and miseducated. They hold Reagan up as their golden calf god without realizing that we are still paying for his mistakes in both AFghanistan and Iraq! Twenty years later, and the conflict is still not over! Wonder why! Could it be that violence and meddling beget more violence and meddling? Could it be that the Military-Industrial Complex is designed to be self-perpetuating? Methinks so . . .

Its amazing that anyone who doesn't not sure the typical conservative "one-dead-arab-is-as-good-as-the-next" worldview must be an American-hating liberal leftist.

I love seeing how all of these people can only regurgitate the talking points spoonfed to them by Rush Limbaugh. Its too bad that the ignorant still get a vote, otherwise we'd have 3,000 more Americans alive and we'd be half a trillion dollars richer!

Please, before you equate what we do in Iraq with the fight against Terror, maybe some of you should crack open a history book and read where the 9/11 terrorists actually came from. Hint: IT'S NOT IRAQ!

at 1:05 PM, January 05, 2007

Anonymous said...

Alter or Abolish and others, why do you see the War in Iraq in such black and white terms, as you accuse your opponents, as narrow-mindedly doing so on other issues?

Iraq is a mess. But losing or retreating is not an option at this time. Due to Bush's mismanagement and Liberals' coercive “lack of will”, Iraq sadly has developed into part of the overall war against radical Jihadist Muslims.

Please don’t respond with your mantra that that not everyone fighting us in Iraq is a terrorist or Jihadist. We understand and agree with your fruitless distinction. When you are able to separate the terrorists from the “freedom fighters” in the battlefield, please inform our USA commanders and troops of your expertise.

at 1:39 PM, January 05, 2007

Brah Coon said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

at 1:55 PM, January 05, 2007

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:40 AM, January 05, 2007 Your promotion of the Clinton policy to criminally prosecute our enemies was not too successful. Do you remember 9/11?

While you descend on the enemy with your USA Justice Department, they are planning how to kill us on a mass destruction scale.

And when they succeed, I expect you will be one of the first to blame others for not doing enough to prevent this disaster.

at 3:02 PM, January 05, 2007

Anonymous said...

This is the problem too....every other country despises us, yet who do they turn to when they need help? Um, US!

Another country bullying you? We'll help! Earthquake, tsunami, other natural disaster? We'll take care of it. You can't have it both ways.

I say, we won't bother you and you don't bother us!

And, all of you Saddam supporters, shame on you! It's easy to be forgiving when he didn't murder members of your family, rape the women that you love and behead your sons right in front of you!

at 3:28 PM, January 05, 2007

Brah Coon said...

If Saddam and Osama are/were " Madmen", what does that make Bush?

Saddam was a tyrant not a lunatic. One of the jobs of a tyrant is to ruthlessly kill opponents of the tyrant. Incidently, this tyrant was our good buddy during the Iran/Iraq war. If the Iraqis longed to be rid of tyranny and transform their gov. to democracy they would have risen en masse and done it themselves. Or certainly should have. We can't do it for them. And by the way, there are no " Iraqis". There are only Sunni, Shi'a, Kurd and other assorted tribes, clans, sects.
The madman saddam held all these together as a state. The saneman Bush, has smashed it all to pieces and if it's ever put back together again by anything other than a tyranny -- I'll eat my hat!

Osama a madman? He might be alot of things, but mad? If he's mad - then bush is a fool! Bush has done exactly what Osama wanted him to do. -- Further destabalize the region. Many would have thought it impossible to further destabalize the region, but Bush has managed it like a champ!

at 8:21 PM, January 05, 2007

Anonymous said...

There is no rationale or justification for your argument: that if we fight back against our enemy, who wants to kill us, that we are only creating more enemies.
I’d rather die and even sadly witness my loved ones be killed, as we in collaboration aggressively defend ourselves and the way of life we represent.

And I confidently and comfortably feel justified in the righteousness of my beliefs when I compare them to the beliefs of the radical fundamental Muslim Jihadists.

We are not perfect, but the USA stands for individual freedoms of speech and religious worship, equality of all men and women; and under fairly elected representative rule.

The Jihadists preach religious intolerance; women are treated as second class humans, individual freedoms are brutally squashed, and all under tyrannical rule.

These fundamental human rights differences can not be dismissed as insignificant cultural differences.

at 8:29 PM, January 05, 2007

Anonymous said...

Bush has made a lot of mistakes but I will easily defend and stand behind his sanity and intentions; over your preferential support and treatment for Saddam and Osama and their deeds.

at 10:16 PM, January 05, 2007

Brah Coon said...

hahaha ..anon@8:21 PM, January 05, 2007 says --- " I’d rather die and even sadly witness my loved ones be killed, as we in collaboration aggressively defend ourselves and the way of life we represent. "

I wont stand in your way. A self culling herd is a healthy herd.

at 9:26 AM, January 06, 2007

Brah Coon said...

hahaha -- I don't see any " saddam supporters" on this blog. As for me, I said he was a tyrant who ruthlessly killed. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. I merely disagreed with the idea that he was a " Madman". LOL If he was a madman then he should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity!

at 4:09 PM, January 07, 2007

Anonymous said...

Interesting how pro Iraq war commenters have only talking points and ad hominem attacks, rather than cogent informed arguments.

Another one for the "who would thunk it" uynintended consequences...

http://www.forward.com/articles/israeli-experts-say-middle-east-was-safer-with-sad

The Jewish Daily Forward

Jerusalem - Although few tears were shed in Israel over Saddam Hussein's death last week, a small but growing chorus - including government officials, academics and Iraqi emigres - is warning that Israelcould find itself in more danger with him gone, and that it might even regret having welcomed his toppling.

"If I knew then what I know today, I would not have recommended going to war, because Saddam was far less dangerous than I hought," said Haifa University political scientist Amatzia Baram, one of Israel's leading Iraq experts.

Saddam was feared and reviled in Israel, both as a tyrant and as an enemy of the Jewish state. He
demonstratively supported Palestinian terrorists, and few have forgiven his bombarding of Israel with Scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf War.

"Retrospectively, justice has been done," Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh told Israel Radio this
week. Still, he cautioned, Israel must now be concerned "about what is liable to happen in the future."

Saddam's death, Sneh warned, could lead to "a reinforcement of Iranian influence in Iraq." He said that Iraq had turned into a "volcano of terror" following the war, with "destructive energies" that could spill
over into Jordan and Israel.

Such misgivings, though rarely aired publicly for fear of offending Washington, reach high into Israel's security establishment. Yuval Diskin, director of the Shin Bet security service, told a group of students in a military preparatory program last May that Israel might come to regret its support for the American
led invasion in March 2003.

"When you dismantle a system in which there is a despot who controls his people by force, you have chaos," Diskin said, unaware that the meeting was secretly recorded. "I'm not sure we won't miss Saddam." The tape was later broadcast on Israeli television.

at 6:14 PM, January 07, 2007

Anonymous said...

reality intrudes...

Critics Say 'Surge' Is More of The Same
Past Troop Buildups Have Not Quelled Iraq
By Michael Abramowitz, Robin Wright and Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 7, 2007; Page A01

President Bush is putting the final touches on his new Iraq policy amid growing skepticism inside and outside the administration that the emerging package of extra troops, economic assistance and political benchmarks for the Baghdad government will make any more than a marginal difference in stabilizing the country.

Washington's debate over Iraq will intensify this week as Bush lays out his plans, probably on Wednesday or Thursday, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other administration officials face tough questions from Democrats in congressional hearings.

Although officials said the president has yet to settle on an exact figure of new troops, senior military leaders and commanders are deeply worried that a "surge" of as many as five brigades, or 20,000 troops, in Iraq and Kuwait would tax U.S. ground forces already stretched to the breaking point -- and may still prove inadequate to quell sectarian violence and the Sunni insurgency. Some senior U.S. officials think it could even backfire.

"There is a lot of concern that this won't work," said one military official not authorized to speak publicly about the debate at the Pentagon.

Meanwhile, the political and economic ideas under consideration all appear to be variations on initiatives that U.S. and Iraqi authorities have proved unable to implement successfully since the 2003 invasion or have tried and found wanting, according to former U.S. officials and experts on reconstructing war-torn countries....

***

Senior military and administration officials privately admit their deep concerns that the troop increase will backfire -- and leave the United States with no options left in six to eight months....Meanwhile, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are worried about overstretching the Army and Marines....

at 12:19 PM, January 08, 2007

Anonymous said...

AOA, I use to respect your differences of opinion (which are many) but I never wished death to you or your loved ones. You spoke volumes with that wish for me and other Americans.

Sad that you rather see fellow Americans killed (I had assumed your were a USA citizen) than your virtuous Saddam or Osama. But at least I better understand your allegiances; and now will treat you with the respect you have proven yourself to deserve.

at 12:26 PM, January 08, 2007

Anonymous said...

"we should've let Saddam remain in Kuwait, kept his army, threaten Israel, and impose his will on the Saudis, all for the sake of "cultural sensitivity" ??"

How was he threatening Israel? Was he going to attack them with the army we routed in less than a month? How about using those non-existant weapons of mass destruction to do the evil deed? Nope, guess not!

Imposing his will on the Saudis? I don't think so! Thats what the first Gulf War was really about, and we stopped him froming doing it and even got to move some army bases into the Holy Land because of it.

Saddam couldn't even get the Kurds because of our no-fly zone restrictions placed on him. We supported through clandestine actions the PUK, the Kurdish militias, but damned if we'll ever help those people, like we helped the Jews, get their own state!

By the way, as far as the Israeli-Palestininian "debate" goes, Israel kills far more ARabs every year than the terrorists do Israelis. This is especially true of children. How often do you see that written about in the papers?

I'm sure I feel an ad hominem attacking coming from some conservative too questioning my pro- or anti-semitism, but I'm neither. I'm pro-people.

Only a conservative can say terrorism is bad and then go on to legitimize, through faulty beliefs, the death and destructions that surpass the actions of terrorist many times over like Iraq. But its okay because do it in a uniform under a flag, right?

Yee - Haw!

at 8:53 PM, January 08, 2007

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:19 PM, January 08, 2007 Are you dumb or naive?

Why are you surprised Liberals, anarchists, and Alter or Abolish would rather see you, USA troops, and most of all “conservatives” dead than Bin Laden, Hussein, and others fighting against America.

The Libs are reliving their glory years of the 1960's, when they mattered last, regarding foreign policy and their forcing us to retreat from Vietnam in defeat. USA body counts are silently cheered by this group, because our country’s defeat and high troop death counts justify their liberal arguments, causes, and purpose for living.

Grow up. The Enemy that lives within is most lethal.

at 3:51 PM, January 09, 2007

Anonymous said...

at 4:28 PM, January 09, 2007

Brah Coon said...

anon@3:51 PM, January 09, 2007

said: " Why are you surprised Liberals, anarchists, and Alter or Abolish would rather see you, USA troops, and most of all “conservatives” dead than Bin Laden, Hussein, and others fighting against America. "

Are there any reasonable, objective people reading this thread who agree with what this person said? Thank God this is the minority opinion in this country. It's disturbing.

at 5:08 PM, January 09, 2007

Brah Coon said...

If you all represent good and loyal Americans, then America is and should be doomed! It's over. No need for you to twist and distort my words here.

at 12:47 PM, January 10, 2007

Anonymous said...

I read this blog thread as collective attitudes and instances of intolerances, superiority, and miscommunication. What a boring lot of blow-hards you all are.
I’m not a hunter but my understanding of “CULLING THE HERD” is to kill unwanted animals. That’s certainly a dehumanizing statement made by enemies as justification for killing another human. Wow!
Words have meaning. Stand behind what you write or learn to communicate better.

Previous Posts

Friday, December 29, 2006

Saddam's fate and year-end letters

51 Comments: