Saddam should have moved to America. He'd be given the death penalty and could chill for numerous years before he is executed. He getting hanged by 6am tomorrow I hear. Thats like a movie. Wonder what his last meal would be? Goat ass, mediterranean falaalfa meal, bag of sour cream & onion chips and a Kblaze video to watch.
Bad intelligence son. This is a just cause. You don't want democracies around the world? Figures. You would of let Hussein remain in power wouldn't you?
I would. It's much better than the current situation. Democracy cannot be imposed, it has to be something the people want. Iraqis don't want secularism. Congratulations on creating another country controlled by Shi|tes, empowering Iran even more.
Iraq was never a threat to America. Ever. How many suicide bombings occured in Iraq before we invaded? How many fingers you got? 1? That's more than you'll need.
Top Ten Myths About Iraq
by Juan Cole
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 *****es. 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 *****es 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 *****es 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 *****es 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 *****es. 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 *****e south is spared much Sunni-*****e 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 *****e 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, *****e 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."
Well I heard they're going to grant Saddam's wish before he gets hang, and that is to be have filthy sex with Tara Conner the Miss USA.
I hear if you you climax just at the point of hanging, it's such a rush. Enjoy Saddam!!!!
But seriously, this war is about what everything is about. Money. The defense contractors and all of Bush's friends became rich. Stealing our tax dollars and into their pockets. Nothing more. Most Americans are too stupid to realize it. The debt is so out of control, we will be suffering for generations. Meanwhile, other democracies around the world put their money into infrastructure, health care, making their lives better. We pay to kill Iraqi's for no reason. Wake up everybody....
The White House is in the hands of NeoConservatives, a radical group of people. Again, most Americans are too stupid to notice. Americans will be suffering because of the decisions Bush and his cronies made for generations to come. He is all but ruining America.....
There are economic sanctions that a country can suffer. A war should always be the last option, if it is an option really.
There were economic sanctioncs that were used.
The war on terror isn't exlucsive to Al Qaeda and bin laden. Countries like Iraq who randomly slaughtered innocnet people and gave money to terrorists are a part of that as well. Iraq was a problem that was going to have to be dealt with sooner or later, obviously Bush wasn't a procrastinator.
Iraq had vioalted every UN resoultion regarding them in the past decade, kicked UN inspectors out, violating an agreement they signed with the US to end the war.
That is a problem. Agreements are made to end or prevent wars, if they're not abided by what's the point? If the international authority has no real authority because all of their resolutions are ignored, people like Saddam can do whatever the **** they want.
If there is no accountability for your actions, you're free to do whatever you like.
What do you suppose would happen if after a murderer was convicted, he was just let go? He'd think he could get away with it, as would the people observing it.
There has to be consequences for your actions, otherwise there will be anarchy. The rules need to be enforced.
Saddam had the power to prevent a war in Iraq. All he has to do is do what he agreed to.
Rather than weaken the military and our intelligence and ignoring the problems around the world, Bush is a realist who's really trying to deal with them.
Do you really not understand the logic behind attacking your opponent before he attacks you?
Since Saddam had been equipping Al-Qaida with funds and chemical weapons for over eight years now, knowing full well that they intended to use those resources to kill Americans, it seems to me like we have had a valid pretext for war since 9/11. Maybe sooner when you consider all the preceding attacks against the USS Cole, our embassies in Africa, their involvement in Somolia, ect.
Every country has a responsibility to protects it's people. North Korea has threatened the US with a nuclear catastrophe, yet I don't see the UN doing anything, aside from sending their cheif weapons inspector on a vacation a monnth into work. The US is trying to restore the UN has a legitimate international authority by dragging them by their collar but if it comes to preserving the UN or protecting the interests of it's own people, the US is obviously going to choose protecting it's people. And it's foolish to expect them to do otherwise, in my view.
Iraq has violated every UN resolution that has been made involving them since the Gulf War.
Including kicking the US inspectors out of the country. Why? Because they US inspectors could find where the weapons were hidden.
The US threatened to take action against Iraq if the UN neglected it's responsibility. Imposing sanctions on the country and then doing nothing but sitting back and watching people die for five years just isn't gonna cut it.
Iraq had already committed a material breach with their weapons declaration.
Also, I'd point out that in 1998 Clinton threatened a war with Iraq when Saddam kicked inspectors out. He was of course called a war mongerer and convinced to just sanction the country to death which didn't help us get rid of all of his weapons. Since 1998 a conflict with Iraq has been a consideration, it wasn't something that Bush just woke up and decided one day.
If a country dislikes another country because they put the safety and security of their people above the preservation of an international peacekeeping body, I have to question what is wrong with those countries belief systems and if they're not in fact hypocrites. I believe that the UN had mandated that all nuclear weapons be destroyed, yet aside from the fact that they're still being created by some country, every country that has them has an "If you use them on me, I'll use them on you" policy.
If you're being chased by a crazy axe murderer who's trying to kill you and your family, in a car, when driving should you respect all of the traffic laws because if you don't, who will? Or should you do anything you can to save yourself and your family, even if it means going over the speed limit or running a stop sign?
I don't believe any leader of a country would sacrifice the security and safety of his people to comply with the UN.
Fact: Sadda Hussein supporting terrorism is a violation of international law.
Fact: Saddam Hussein had been supporting terrorism for years now, and continues to do so before the war.
Logical Conclusion: Saddam and Iraq were in violation of international law.
The debate over whether or not Iraq does or doesn`t have WMD is arbitrary, even if Iraq doesn`t they were still in violation of international law anyways.
The resolution called for a declaration of all the Iraqi weapons. They did gave us a declaration, however failure to comply with the order to declare all weapons is a material breach. We know it's a breach because the declaration was outdated based on the inspections that ended in 1998.
If a judge orders a company to turn over accounting documents and they only hand over the non-incriminating documents, that company will be in deep ****. That's basic justice.
they should take him on tour around the world, chaining him up and for a small fee let people kick him in the balls. Spit on him, piss on him and punch him in the mouth. Use the funds the rebuild Iraq.