Saddam's Dead, D-E-D Dead

Here's a purely hypothetical scenario (just harmless fantasy):

What if the US had not handed Saddam over to the Iraqi authorities? Instead the US could build a dictatorship in Iraq and grant Saddam the role of ruthless dictator (again). Then the US military would pull out of Iraq, save a lot of money to the US taxpayers and save countless american soldiers' lives... and claim that the whole idea of building a democracy in Iraq (or whatever stupid reason led the US to invade Iraq) just didn't work.
After that, the US would make an effort to restore things, and Iraq would be the almost the same as it was before the invasion, except for the hundreds of thousands dead, and the billions of USD spent for nothing.

Would that be too radical? Would this be enough to classify me as a coward, traitor, liberal?

The latest justification seems to be that we're fighting a world-wide network of terrorist organisations supported by Iran (like, you know, al-Qaeda, which is clearly an Iranian-suppported Shia terrorist organisation). It seems as if the American and British governments have given up attempting to present even the flimsiest facade of logic, rationality or coherence.

If Bush had been in charge during WW2 he'd probably have decided to invade the Soviet Union to defeat Nazi Germany...

Minor silly quibble:

Pictures are hung, people are hanged.

President Bush said something interesting a few days ago: "We are confident of finding a plan for Iraq."

So he's admitting there is no plan, and perhaps never was one, but he's trying to think of one. So the troops are there for no reason, until he can invent one.

And the president is saying this in a speech on how well things are going?!

Kapitano, you have to remember there are no failures, there are only successes that haven't happened yet!

President Bush said something interesting a few days ago: "We are confident of finding a plan for Iraq."

So he's admitting there is no plan, and perhaps never was one, but he's trying to think of one.

Ya, but he is confident and I am confident in him. Very much so)))).

If only ;)

http://www.at.ns.co.yu/BushExecution/BBC_Breaking_News.htm

"Minor silly quibble:

Pictures are hung, people are hanged."

wasn't jesus hung on a cross?
what do you call a man with no arms and no legs hung on a wall? Art!

brought to you by the truly tasteless joke dept.

If Bush had been in charge during WW2 he'd probably have decided to invade the Soviet Union to defeat Nazi Germany...

Which would make some sense prior to 1941, as the SU was Hitler's ally back then.

Are you all claiming there is NOT a world wide terrorist network, or that we are just going after the wrong people?

Or if there is such a network, are you saying we should not go after it?

And will the Democrats actually protect the country?

Hmm...well I doubt that anyone thinks there isn't a terrorism network out there, the question seems to be: Can you fight terrorism through a war on one country? I would say that terrorism would be best "fought" by a good intelligence network, cultivating allies rather than enemies, and a few changes to our policies overseas. I guess for me, fighting terrorism is like fighting 'the war on drugs' in that the 'enemy' is an attitude rather than a person per se. So, its difficult to know WHO to target.

And as for the Democrats protecting the country, we're all Americans aren't we? We all have the same goals of keeping America safe and are reasonable as to how to do it, despite party lines. The scare tactic that the Republicans use that only they can get the job done is just a ploy to scare people into voting for them. And don't forget, 9/11 happened on a Republican's watch.

Christensen said:

Are you all claiming there is NOT a world wide terrorist network, or that we are just going after the wrong people?

I think there are a number of terrorist organisations, some of which have links to others and some of which receive various kinds of support from one or more states. However, these terrorist organisations clearly divide into one class which are Sunni and another class which is Shia. These two classes of organisations are generally hostile towards each other even though they have a number of enemies (foremost amongst them the United States and Israel) in common.

It's my belief that we should primarily be targetting al-Qaeda, which is a network of Sunni terrorist organisations which was responsible for attacking the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre (as well as carrying out a number of less spectacular attacks against the Allies). Al-Qaeda is clearly not backed by Iran, and in fact is busy fighting in Iraq against Shia groups backed by Iran, hence my earlier comment. (The former [secular, semi-socialist] Iraqi regime was also hostile towards al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was only allowed to operate on Iraqi soil in the Kurdish regions in the north of the country, which were more or less out of the control of the Baathist regime.)

This is not to say that Iranian-backed terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah should not also be considered our enemies, but I think that the defeat of al-Qaeda should be our primary aim.

Furthermore, I think that the problems of the Islamic world are many, varied, deep and very complex. (See also my weblog post "Fundamentalist Islam's Cargo Cult") I don't think viewing them as a simple problem - lack of democracy - that can be solved using a simple means - the application of military force to overthrow governments - is a particularly sensible approach. Any realistic strategy will have to take a very long view (decades to a century) and use the full spectrum of resources available to western states. Any more short-term approach, especially one which leads to further humiliation of the Arabic and wider Islamic world, is likely to be very counterproductive.

Roman said:

If Bush had been in charge during WW2 he'd probably have decided to invade the Soviet Union to defeat Nazi Germany...
Which would make some sense prior to 1941, as the SU was Hitler's ally back then.

I don't think the USSR and the Third Reich should be seen as allies during the period covered by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. They were clearly ideological enemies who'd made a temporary non-agression pact because it was in the perceived best interests of both that the Reich begin its military expansion proper on a western front (after the partition of Poland, which had been agreed in the pact's secret protocol). This being the case, attacking the USSR would've would've strengthened the position of Nazi Germany, not weakened it.

Looked more like a lynching rather than a hanging, but that is just my opinion. Sadam was the only one brave enough to show his face.

One thing about FDR, he knew how to fight a war. Wait until it was almost over to land troops in France. And only after the Soviet union had destroyed 80% of the German armor and destroyed most of its divisions.

The United States has accomplished all it said it wanted to do in Iraq before the war. It has verified that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction and taken Sadam out of power. We should accept our victory and go home. Mission Accomplished!

As the old saying goes:

Dead men don't tell tales.