Saddam To Be Hanged Within a Month
Iraq’s highest court has rejected Saddam’s appeals and ruled that Saddam must be hanged within 30 days. Justice is a little swifter over there.
We already know how the media will spin the story: increased sectarian strife, bad for Iraq, tougher for L.A. Times columnists to argue for his return to power, etc.
For the rational world, however, this must be seen as a major step forward in the struggle for Iraq.
The 30 days is a maximum, by the way. I’m hoping it’s done before the New Year.
Hehe, the rational world?
The rational world that invaded Iraq by mistake and then turned it into a charnal house?
Is that what you guys call yourselves these day?
Yes, executing Saddam will indeed cause more sectarian strife and get more American troops killed.
But no cost is too high when you’re fighting “evil.”
Right?
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/26/2006 @ 4:29 pmI trust the media is on order from the all-powerful Patterico. Dare to report any “sectarian strife” and risk being accused of “spinning” for “the enemy.”
Ask President Low-Normal.
David Ehrenstein (f45bb3) — 12/26/2006 @ 4:39 pmYeah, just like opposing Hitler caused all those deaths in Europe. Got lots of American troops killed.
Oh, but then anyone who would choose a handle like “Neville Chamberlain” would think that was a mistake, too.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 12/26/2006 @ 4:48 pmI’m guessing it will be a public execution, so the Iraqi people can be confident of his demise.
Doubtless, there will be some violence. (There’s violence related to everything, isn’t there? Cartoons?) But I’m betting on lots more open celebrating.
I’ll wait to see it on YouTube, so I can celebrate along with them.
ManlyDad (d62cf6) — 12/26/2006 @ 5:05 pmThe hangman keeping his long overdue date with Saddam Hussein is the only reason I ever needed to justify the Iraq War. Or maybe we should have let him go on shredding people in plastic recyclers, gassing Kurdish babies and Iranian teenagers and paying bounties to the families of suicide bombers?
As for the “sectarian strife”, this puts them forward on the chronology of civilization, in my opinion. It’s moving them forward from their 7th century Dark Ages religion, such as practiced by the Wahabis, to the 16th century Thirty-Year War between Catholics and Protestants. Maybe in another 1300 hundred years they’ll have their version of Vatican II.
nk (f58916) — 12/26/2006 @ 5:09 pmThe nonsensical comparison between our grubby little crusade in Iraq and WWII is wearing a little thin Kevin.
Especially now that Bush’s war of choice has dragged on longer than America’s involvement in WWII…and cost more money, too.
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/26/2006 @ 5:09 pmLasted longer than the involvement of the US – yes
Cost more – yes
Lost more lives – hell no, but of course that doesn’t count.
If this war was fought like WWII it would have been over fast, but then millions would be dead and then there’d be problems with that too.
Lord Nazh (285c90) — 12/26/2006 @ 5:17 pmThere’s no proof the millions of civilians America killed during WWII ended it any sooner, LN.
The Soviets were the ones who took out the Nazis…America was their towel boy at best.
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/26/2006 @ 5:21 pmThe thing that concerns me more than the fate of Saddam is Ayatollah Sistani’s recent apparent refusal to allow Iraq’s Shiite politicians to form coalitions that exclude any Shiites, such as excluding Sadr. It seems like the U.S. may be inadvertently facilitating a monolithic Shiite takeover of Iraq, and maybe the eventual dominance of Sadr.
To be sure, Sistani has his good points. For example, he has a most interesting website. And, he’s certainly an improvement over Saddam. But I doubt Sadr would be.
Does the following quote from Harry Truman suggest how people like Sadr and Saddam ought to be treated?
Quoted in New York Times, June 24, 1941.
Andrew (08ba2c) — 12/26/2006 @ 5:33 pmNeville, I thought those little atomic bombs we dropped on Japan provided a little encouragement to end the war as soon as possible, but it is easy to misread the situation through the fog of history. The Japanese were also fairly compliant after the war. Does that mean atomic weapons should have been tried more broadly Neville?
I also heard that Mike Farrell is hopping the next plane to Baghdad to protest the Saddam execution. You’ll be able to recognize him pretty easily on the news, he’ll be wearing the Save Tookie Williams T-shirt.
daleyrocks (bbbd35) — 12/26/2006 @ 5:33 pmJust when I think Neville has reached the bottom of its indecency, it brings out the jackhammer and descends even further.
Darleen (543cb7) — 12/26/2006 @ 5:47 pmI don’t mean to question the right’s most cherished fantasies, Darleen.
Just pointing out that because you based your war on those fantasies, things have turned out rather badly.
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/26/2006 @ 5:54 pmAmerican victories in WWII a “right wing fantasy”?
Right along with The Holocaust being a fantasy for you, too, eh?
Darleen (543cb7) — 12/26/2006 @ 6:09 pmTowel Boys need love too, Darleen.
David Ehrenstein (f45bb3) — 12/26/2006 @ 6:10 pmNeville–
Sorry, but until you change your handle from that fool who succeeded in being Hitler’s bitch, you’re going to get the Munich treatment every time you open your mouth.
Maybe you just don’t get it, but it’s like you’ve decided to use Boss Tweed’s name while accusing people of government corruption.
“Neville Chamberlain” was a world-class fool, possibly the most horrid political failure in the 20th century. A synonym for “failure of nerve”, a profile in cowardice. It’s hard to see how you expect to have anything you say respected with a handle like that. “Bozo” would be better. Sheesh!
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 12/26/2006 @ 6:15 pmThe Nazis lost 3.5 million soldiers during WWII.
The Soviets killed 3.1 million of them on the Eastern Front.
Do the math, Darleen.
There’s no harm done by believing America beat the Nazis, unless you’re foolish enough to model a current war on such pure propaganda.
Then you get fiascos like Iraq…
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/26/2006 @ 6:17 pm“Neville” and “David” seem so in sync, makes one wonder if they might not be breathing the same air at the same time.
Bill M (b7df02) — 12/26/2006 @ 6:21 pmhangman, hangman, wait up for awhile
i think i see the americans coming, coming many a mile…..
is he worth more to us alive or dead? he didn’t have wmd’s and he had nothing to do with 9/11. that was the saudis more than any other country in the region. why must more americans die in a futile effort to prevent sunnis and shiites from killing each other? bush said “mission accomplished”, he promised no nation building. as ronald reagan said about student violence at san francisco state, “if there’s gonna be a bloodbath, let’s get it over with.”
i’m betting he’s still alive in 30 days. wish patterico would set up gaming software on this site, similar to the iowa electronic markets, so there would be somebody i could bet against.
assistant devil's advocate (d6a0d7) — 12/26/2006 @ 6:24 pmWould the Soviets have been able to defeat the Nazi’s without US or UK help?
No.
I never said WWII was a lone American endeavor (and we fought not only the Nazi’s in Europe and Africa, but Imperial Japan in the Pacific…a fight that didn’t enter until after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima). I’ve never heard anyone claim what you are asserting to counter with your libel.
Yet, you denigrate American efforts and victories in WWII.
Calling you pond scum would be an insult to pond scum.
Darleen (543cb7) — 12/26/2006 @ 6:35 pm… a fight the Soviets didn’t enter …
Darleen (543cb7) — 12/26/2006 @ 6:35 pmArguing with Neville Chamberlain is noncupatory. He suffers from what Dafydd ab Hugh calls “rhetorical autism”. Throwing out little bits of trivia which, whether true or not, support neither his collateral argument nor his argument on the subject under discussion.
nk (5a2f98) — 12/26/2006 @ 6:40 pmRef: #20
Therefore, he is a troll.
Bill M (b7df02) — 12/26/2006 @ 6:44 pmNver had the pleasure of meeting the gentleman.
Darleen’s knowledge of WWII matches all her other insights.
David Ehrenstein (f45bb3) — 12/26/2006 @ 6:46 pmThe only thing missing from David’s comments is ending them with “and a GOOD DAY, to you, sir!”
Darleen (543cb7) — 12/26/2006 @ 6:54 pmOh, the heck with it. With apologies to Patterico.
Nothing like revisioning history and deriding the heroism of men whose behinds you would not be fit to kiss, is there, Neville and David?
nk (5a2f98) — 12/26/2006 @ 7:11 pmNothing like sending Americans and Iraqis to their deaths based on a warped knowledge of history, is there, nk?
It takes more than flag waving, moral smugness and jingoistic speeches to win a war…
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/26/2006 @ 7:20 pm“It takes more than flag waving, moral smugness and jingoistic speeches to win a war…”
OK. Tell us what it takes.
nk (5a2f98) — 12/26/2006 @ 7:26 pmWaiting. No strategic plan for winning a war from that general of generals, Neville Chamberlain, yet.
nk (54c569) — 12/26/2006 @ 7:39 pmNK #20,
Re: Dafydd’s “rhetorical autism” quote, I just wanted you to know: As the parents of a profoundly autistic son, even he knows better than to argue like Neville does. Maybe we should call it rhetorical Alzheimers …
DRJ (51a774) — 12/26/2006 @ 7:39 pmNeville is proof that VCRs are a dead technology – in the old days, he’d be too busy with his job as Head Rewinder at Video Village to spend so much time trolling. Nev has alot more time now that DVDs are dominant and Uncle Herb named him Chief Disc Wipe.
SmokeVanThorn (b86663) — 12/26/2006 @ 7:42 pmWell, nk,
Knowing who, exactly, you’re fighting is a great first step in winning a war.
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/26/2006 @ 7:54 pmnk
An wry saying accredited to the Soviet dissident movement goes
Neville would dismiss the American role in WWII (and ignore the UK’s) as Stalin would “erase” Trotsky, or David Duke and Amedawhackjob would “erase” the Holocaust.
Darleen (543cb7) — 12/26/2006 @ 7:57 pmNeville, #30:
So whom are we fighting? Come on buddy, I can get these platitudes from a David Drake novel. Give us something constructive here.
nk (35ba30) — 12/26/2006 @ 7:58 pmI don’t know, nk.
Who are we fighting in Iraq these days?
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/26/2006 @ 8:02 pmI’m not backing off on you, Neville. You’re the genius with statements about winning wars. That we are fighting is a fact. You tell us whom we are fighting and how to win.
nk (35ba30) — 12/26/2006 @ 8:06 pmDarleen #31:
No question. Having had grandparents and uncles who fought against the Nazis and a great-uncle and two uncles who were killed by them, none of them Russian, I saw Neville’s assertions as the height of Stalinist-style revisionism.
nk (35ba30) — 12/26/2006 @ 8:10 pmI’m being honest, nk.
I have no clue as to who we’re supposed to be fighting or what our goals are in Iraq these days.
We seem to be continuing our occupation of Iraq despite the fact that a vast majority of Iraqis (and Americans) want us to leave…
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/26/2006 @ 8:13 pmFair enough, Neville. Then will you please …?
I already said whom we went there to fight. A murderer of children for whom the hangman is long overdue. So is it in our national character to leave the same breeding ground for the same kind of murderer that our children will have to fight? Or to do what we did with West Germany and Japan?
nk (35ba30) — 12/26/2006 @ 8:24 pmSo we are at war with a “breeding ground?”
Our record of cleaning up messes for our children is rather poor, nk.
America has had a hand in creating all the people we have fought since WWII including the Viet Minh, the North Koreans, the Taliban, Saddam, al Qeada, Manuel Noriega, etc.
No doubt our children or our the children of our allies will have to deal with the army we are training in Iraq sometime in the future…
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/26/2006 @ 8:32 pmI did not say that we are at war with a breeding ground. We are at war with the mosquitoes who like that breeding ground. We are trying to dry up the breeding ground and it’s a bitch of a job while the mosquitos are stinging us. And that’s all they’re doing. Stinging us. They have not managed to do anything to hurt us in any serious way. And you, and other lefties, are the sensitive-skinned ones who equate a mosquito bite with a Hiroshima bomb.
“America has had a hand in creating all the people we have fought since WWII including the Viet Minh, the North Koreans, the Taliban, Saddam, al Qeada, Manuel Noriega, etc.”
No. We did not create them. We just didn’t stomp as fast enough and as hard enough as we should have.
nk (35ba30) — 12/26/2006 @ 8:43 pmBe honest, nk.
We funded all of them at some point in their rise to power.
And while “draining the swamp” may sound like a great idea, translating it into an actual plan of attack is impossible.
In Iraq, we have become the mosquitoes.
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/26/2006 @ 8:50 pmNeville, you should have believed me when I said that I was not letting you off the hook. We made the circle. Tell us your plan for Iraq.
nk (35ba30) — 12/26/2006 @ 9:02 pmSaddam was a client of the Russians and the French
and there’s a good chance will be Islamic within a couple of generations …
Not more than three when Notre Dame goes the way of the Aya Sofia.
Unless, of course, the American “mosquitos” treat Islamic fascism like they treated the fascism of the last century.
Dhimmi’s like Neville think they’ll be spared as they welcome their new Islamist overlords.
Darleen (543cb7) — 12/26/2006 @ 9:06 pm… France will be Islamic …
apologies for the type
[pimf pimf pimf]
Darleen (543cb7) — 12/26/2006 @ 9:07 pmMy plan for Iraq, nk?
Pull all our troops out…now.
Darleen,
Please explain how, exactly, that the Islamists are going to take over America.
1. Invasion?
2. Win an election?
3. ???
What’s your best guess?
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/26/2006 @ 9:16 pmi confess that i don’t know who we’re fighting in iraq either. the sunnis? the shiites? likening iraq to west germany or japan is silly. japan attacked us first, and germany attacked all of europe. the only country iraq had warred with recently was iran.
assistant devil's advocate (48ea94) — 12/26/2006 @ 9:21 pmwe’re fighting the “insurgents”? if another country invaded oregon, set up checkpoints, busted into houses, i would spend every waking moment figuring out how to kill as many of them as i could.
neville chamberlain is wrong to dismiss america’s role in wwii; we turned the tide with the normandy invasion and closed it out over hiroshima and nagasaki. i think he ought to get a different screen name because the one he has now is just a lightning rod.
off topic, but r.i.p. gerald ford, who just died. i thought he was a classy guy, not a smart guy, just classy. i wish we could bring him back to take over again.
“My plan for Iraq, nk?
Pull all our troops out…now.”
Well, yes, that’s what I thought. That’s what the mosquitos want too.
But back on topic:
“Thank you and goodnight
nk (35ba30) — 12/26/2006 @ 9:23 pmnow it’s time to go home’
and he makes it fast with one more thing
‘We are the Sultans,
we are the Sultans of Swing.”
The real question is who would give OBL as much due process as saddam got?
actus (10527e) — 12/26/2006 @ 9:32 pmNeville
How is Eurabia being made?
How could something like that not happen here? Oh may take several generations, but multi-cultural chic and organizations like CAIR are certainly patient and perserverant.
Darleen (543cb7) — 12/26/2006 @ 9:49 pmSo our troops are dying in Iraq today so our grandchildren won’t have to eat falafel, Darleen?
Wow, that’s even lamer than I imagined.
So much for morality, huh?
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/26/2006 @ 10:12 pmNeville
You and morality aren’t even in the same solar system.
Darleen (543cb7) — 12/26/2006 @ 10:19 pmNeville Chamberlain? My god, that name has GOT to be a joke. Not only that, but his arguments are just as sound. Yes…pull out of Iraq so we can have “peace in our time.” That’s the ticket! Give the terrorists Iraq, just as your namesake gave Hitler the Sudetenland, and we can all live happily ever after. Until they tell us to give them Israel, that is.
otcconan (a12490) — 12/26/2006 @ 10:45 pmI’m not at all sure Saddam’s death will make a huge difference on either the plus or the minus side. No doubt there will be a sharp upturn in violence around the event, but after that I suspect it will go back to being a question of whether a single source of legitimacy can find its way out without a full scale civil conflict. Saddam’s not being there may give new urgency to all parties, but as they don’t agree I’m not sure the urgency will solve anything so much as accelerate the process of working out whether it can be solved peacefully.
B (08fd8d) — 12/27/2006 @ 2:25 amI could kill for a decent falafel around here. They’re mostly soggy and microwaved warm. A fresh one is hard to come by.
actus (10527e) — 12/27/2006 @ 6:54 amBill O’Reilly has them all, actus.
David Ehrenstein (f45bb3) — 12/27/2006 @ 7:10 amAh, but Neville would give Israel to ’em, too.
And Europe, Africa, Indonesia, et al.
Nev just wants to sit undisturbed in its little apartment, just enough food and booze in the frig and a little entertainment on the telly, and the rest of the world can go to hell.
Darleen (543cb7) — 12/27/2006 @ 7:16 amI guess to ADD, Kuwait really is part of Iraq?
And Neville Chamberlain laying the problem of North Korea at the fault of the United States merely represents the harbinger call of the appeasers when it comes time to confront North Korea.
Apparently, if only we’d let North Korea conquer South Korea, we’d all be better off?
Yup, b/c Kim Jong-il would do soooo much better if only he had more human lives to destroy.
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 12/27/2006 @ 7:28 amPat:
I know you’re a big advocate of the open exchange of ideas. Clearly, Neville and/or David don’t bring much of that to the table. They deliberately instigate. Time and again what starts as an interesting and potentialy fruitful discussion quickly devolves into flame warfare. A never ending exchange of insults is boring. When one or both become involved even the best topics and threads become unreadable.
They are nothing more than trolls with every negative conotation that word has come to include. Thread and discussion killers.
And so Shogun, it is with some reluctantance I suggest that it may be time to consign them to the septic tank of cyberspace. Neh?
Ms. Judged (becd1d) — 12/27/2006 @ 9:42 amIn short an “open exchange” is one that echoes your beliefs and that of the moderator.
Neat.
David Ehrenstein (f45bb3) — 12/27/2006 @ 10:29 amNo, I think an “open exchange” is where folks show up with more in mind than snarkiness, BDS, and a generally unpleasant demeanor.
In this regard, I’m with Ms. Judged.
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 12/27/2006 @ 10:36 amNobody’s forcing you to read their comments or to respond to them.
David E. is doing a pretty good job of behaving himself, given what he’s capable of . . .
Patterico (a4e859) — 12/27/2006 @ 11:17 amSmall praise, Patterico, but fair enough. Your blog, your rules.
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 12/27/2006 @ 11:27 amada – You write “the only country iraq had warred with recently was iran.”
Kuwait? Attacks in the no-fly zones? Any of this ringing a bell?
SmokeVanThorn (97d6f6) — 12/27/2006 @ 1:02 pmPat:
I am at all times aware that I am not “forced” to read or respond. Visiting blogs in 100% voluntary. Your comment was a little sharp under the circumstances.
But you must know that following topics and the comments they generate, requires reading or at least starting to read trollers’ comments and is practically impossible to avoid.
Not being forced to read and being unable to avoid some part of their comments are not the same. One may completely avoid exposure to them only by avoiding the sites on which they regularly appear. Not my first choice.
Your are correct in the second part of your coment. Responding is easily avoided. And I have.
My points are these: 1) They are trolls; and 2) They ruin otherwise good discussions. My suggestion was that for the good of your blog, you should consider doing something about it.
As of now, no one has challeged either point or responded to the suggestion.
IMHO good topics are ruined by flame throwers. When I encounter them I most often move on. I suspect others may react in the same way. The time that many may spend on your site could be lessened because of trolls.
As Lurking Observer points out, your blog, your rules. I cannot argue with that.
[It was a little sharp but only because I was pressed for time. Sorry about that. Anyway, I’m willing to suffer a little inconvenience to make sure we have dissenting viewpoints here. — P]
Ms. Judged (becd1d) — 12/27/2006 @ 1:03 pm“IMHO good topics are ruined by flame throwers.”
-Ms. Judged
Are we to assume that your idea of a “good discussion” regarding the execution of Saddam Hussein would be one wherein you and your Republican friends growled about how badass you are, and what YOU’D do to Saddam if you had the chance(by golly)?
I mean, that’s what most death penalty discussions end up like on this blog (hat tip to Kevin Murphy and krazy kagu).
Leviticus (ab6462) — 12/27/2006 @ 1:58 pm#65. And to think, I started this thinking there were only two obvious trolls on this thread. Oops!
Ms. Judged (becd1d) — 12/27/2006 @ 2:11 pmok, kuwait rings a bell. i remember its venomous anti-american position at the united nations prior to saddam’s invasion, and i remember american ambassador to iraq april glaspie mistakenly giving saddam the green light to invade it.
assistant devil's advocate (71994d) — 12/27/2006 @ 2:23 pmi don’t regard violation of a “no-fly zone” as an act of aggression so much as a defensive measure. many of the problems of the neoconservative strategy stem from its failure to recognize that restricted/invaded/occupied people will naturally fight back just as i would.
Pat:
Thanks. Everybody’s busy these days. No offense.
I see substantial and qualitive differences between dissenting opinion and trolls. Perhaps I put to fine a point on it but I don’t think so. Conciously or unconciously, Leviticus makes my point in his #65 above. Arguably he is a dissenter, but his obvious trollish bent is undeniable.
Note that I have not uttered a word about the topic. Nonetheless Leviticus, on the basis of zero evidence concludes that he has devined my political affiliation, who I hang with, what I desire for Saddam and what I would do to him if only I was afforded the opportunity. All the while he couches the spew in deliberately offensive language.
Nah. Not too fine a point all.
Ms. Judged (becd1d) — 12/27/2006 @ 2:30 pm“And Neville Chamberlain laying the problem of North Korea at the fault of the United States merely represents the harbinger call of the appeasers when it comes time to confront North Korea.”
LO,
America’s involvement in the creation of North Korea dates back to the end of WWII (at least).
We pleaded with the Soviet Union to invade the Korean peninsula so we wouldn’t have to take on the million or so Japanese troops occupying it.
They did, they crushed the Japanese, then they were occupying all of Korea…
America then refused to allow the friendly-to-us Korean government in exile to take over, so Korea was split, just like Europe was, between Soviet control and Western control.
Something to ponder as we make expedient alliances in Iraq with no thought to how things will turn out in the long run…
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/27/2006 @ 2:56 pm@ms. judged:
assistant devil's advocate (19bf21) — 12/27/2006 @ 3:46 pmgo easy on leviticus, he’s only 17 years old. i’m sure you were a brash, impetuous spitfire at 17.
regarding “neville chamberlain”, what possible chance could he – or i, for that matter – stand against a woman gifted with the great wisdom occasioned by contemporaneous observation of his original namesake’s failed policies?
ada,
Are you taking your nasty pills, again? So the Iraqis are just defending their land, eh? Defending their right to gas Kurds and Iranians, invade Kuwait and pay to have school-children in Israel blown up? Defending the right to say, “Iraq, Love It Or Get Shredded Alive In A Plastic Recycler Or If You’re A Woman Get Raped To Death In A Rape Room”?
nk (47858f) — 12/27/2006 @ 4:51 pm‘So the Iraqis are just defending their land, eh? Defending their right to gas Kurds and Iranians, invade Kuwait and pay to have school-children in Israel blown up? Defending the right to say, “Iraq, Love It Or Get Shredded Alive In A Plastic Recycler Or If You’re A Woman Get Raped To Death In A Rape Room”? ‘
Is this really what they want to do? Yikes! Giving them autonomy sounds like the last thing we’d want to do.
Fortunately I smell hysterical rhetoric.
B (e8227e) — 12/27/2006 @ 5:14 pm“Is this really what they want to do? Yikes! Giving them autonomy sounds like the last thing we’d want to do.
Fortunately I smell hysterical rhetoric.”
It’s what they were doing before we invaded. Or are you going to deny that like the other Saddam lickspittles? As for what you’re smelling it’s only a product of where your head is placed.
nk (956ea1) — 12/27/2006 @ 5:24 pmWhen they could be getting DeLuxe treatment from us at Abu Grahaib.
David Ehrenstein (7a0a1d) — 12/27/2006 @ 6:26 pmRhetorical
nk (956ea1) — 12/27/2006 @ 6:30 pmautismAlzheimer’s, David. Bet you a dollar that Saddam’s Abu Ghraib was just a little bit (sarcasm) worse than ours.[…] Patterico talks about the ‘actual’ consequences… harder for LA Times to call for his return… that’s almost as funny as the CNN headline. […]
The Coffeespy » Hanging Leads to ‘Grave Consequences?’ (aad225) — 12/27/2006 @ 8:31 pmAnd btw – there have been hundreds of Iraqis asking to hang Suddam, ’cause he’s all loved and everything.
Sarah D. (f7e827) — 12/27/2006 @ 10:10 pm‘It’s what they were doing before we invaded. Or are you going to deny that like the other Saddam lickspittles? As for what you’re smelling it’s only a product of where your head is placed. ‘
Several things here:
You may want to watch your terminology. Talking about what ‘the Iraqis are doing’ is different from talking about what ‘the ruling baath party were doing’. If you don’t understand the subtleties of time/specificity distinctions, I’d advise avoiding discussions in which the distinction might be important. It just makes you look stupid.
B (08fd8d) — 12/28/2006 @ 1:30 amAnd, having accidentally posted that, the second issue is that if you genuinely believe all of the fighting is from people who are nasty in all the old ways you’ve listed that’s a rather alarming prospect for the liberation and autonomy effort. Again, fortunately most of us can spot the difference between people invading and torturing their neighbours and those fighting to make sure they’re in control of their own territory. If we ignore the latter, rather than making it work for us, we’re not going to win.
B (08fd8d) — 12/28/2006 @ 1:35 amAnyway, I’m willing to suffer a little inconvenience to make sure we have dissenting viewpoints here.
I guess it depends on the definition of dissent. Like some others I don’t see the value of trolls for trolls’ sake. I wish we had informed argumentation in this thread but try as I might I’m not seeing it. As you said though, I can always stop paying my subscription…
_______________________
So Saddam is apparently going to get what he has richly earned. I certainly won’t be shedding any tears.
Will it change anything in Iraq though? I think its necessary for him to move on for Iraq’s sake but I doubt its going to make much difference to what we’re seeing in the news daily.
From what I can glean we’ve got 2 types of violence going on over there. One is Zarqawi type Islamoweirdo violence directed at US troops. It is apparently quite sophisticated now, with state of the art shaped charges for IED’s (provided by Iran).
The other is what the media is calling civil war. I suppose that’s a fair characterization, but it looks more to me like ethnic cleansing – Shiites cleansing Baghdad of Sunnis. It is certainly Iraqis fighting each other for control.
I have a lot of trouble generating any hope for that blighted land right now.
Dwilkers (4f4ebf) — 12/28/2006 @ 2:50 am#70 Hey! ADA!
Long time no snark. How you bean?
So you are acquainted with one of the younger resident trolls? Only 17 eh? I was of the impression that there was an age restriction on this site. Something like “You must be THIS TALL…….”, or “Must show proper I.D.!”.
I supose I could be convinced to cut kids a little slack. Lord knows I needed in my “spitfire” days. I can’t help by think of that bumper sticker. You remember the one: “Teenagers! Quick! Move out while you stil know everything!”
O.K. I’ll go along on your recomendation. The grown up trolls, on the other hand get no such consideration.
I think Pat implent the troll flush function. Short of that maybe probation. Terms and conditions might be: “Engage, debate, dissent but shed the nasty language and deliberate provactions. Violate probation, and its the deep, dark and viscous for you.”
How about it Pattie me boy?
Ms. Judged (becd1d) — 12/28/2006 @ 9:10 amNeville, at least your namesake had a clue as to history.
Chamberlain wrote, We pleaded with the Soviet Union to invade the Korean peninsula so we wouldn’t have to take on the million or so Japanese troops occupying it.
Do you mean the Kwantung army, which was mainly based in Manchuria (aka Manchukuo)? While that army had responsibility for the defense of that part of the Japanese empire, most of its troops were in Manchukuo on the border, facing the USSR. The idea that there were a million troops in Korea (again, as opposed to within the entire Kwantung army AOR) is silly.
Chamberlain next writes, They did, they crushed the Japanese, then they were occupying all of Korea.
Actually, while the Soviets certainly defeated the Kwantung Army (much of which had been stripped away for defense of the Home Islands), they hardly occupied all of Korea. Indeed, except for a few amphibious detachments in northern Korea, the bulk of the 1st Far Eastern Front never even reached the Yalu River, never mind Seoul or Inchon.
Had they done so, it’s hardly likely that we’d have gained political footing in the south, after all.
Finally, for the trifecta, Chamberlain writes, America then refused to allow the friendly-to-us Korean government in exile to take over, so Korea was split, just like Europe was, between Soviet control and Western control.
Actually, there was no such thing as a Korean government-in-exile, b/c Korea had been a colony of Japan since either 1905 (when it was a protectorate) or 1910 (when it was openly annexed). Thus, there was no more a Korean “government-in-exile” (implying a government that had been driven out, like the Norwegian, Dutch, and Belgian governments) in 1945 than there was a Sioux or Iroquois “government-in-exile.” Certainly, there were individual Koreans in exile (including Syngman Rhee), but that’s like saying Josephine Baker represented the African-American nation in exile.
Korea was split in large part for administrative purposes, with the 38th Parallel being chosen by a couple of low-level State Department folks in order to figure out how to disarm the Japanese forces that were still in Korea. No one on the US/Western allied side had expected Korea to be permanently divided, unlike the situation in Germany (where there was a distinct desire to keep German power at bay).
For more information on the Soviet invasion (including the extent of where their forces actually reached), I’d highly recommend David Glantz’s books on the tactical and strategic aspects of Operation August Storm.
For more information on the state of Korean politics circa 1945-1950, Bruce Cumings has done some yeoman work on domestic politics in Korea at the time.
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 12/28/2006 @ 2:17 pmHehe, LO,
As this is not my blog and my comments about America’s resposibility for the creation of North Korea were slightly off topic, I tried to be brief.
Let’s just say that not all of America’s attempts to spread sweetness and light to the world turned out well…
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/28/2006 @ 2:56 pmTwo possibilities:
1. Neville is my name, history’s my game (NOT!!);
2. Neville Chamberlain is my name (Really).
Ms. Judged (becd1d) — 12/28/2006 @ 3:07 pmShorter Neville:
Just b/c I can’t get facts straight doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 12/28/2006 @ 3:14 pmThe “facts” are:
America convinced the Soviets to join the fight against Japan.
America split Korea in two…and gave North Korea to the Soviets.
Your post was opinion, LO.
Try to understand the difference…
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/28/2006 @ 3:21 pmNeville, it sounds to me like you’re deliberately simplifying things to avoid key details which would put the lie to your claim that North Korea is an american screw-up.
First off, the soviets were still actively involved in WW2 when Korea was invaded. The specific battleplan was American, but are you seriously suggesting that the Soviets would have held off occupying territory without American sayso? If so, I’m keen to see the evidence, given the enthusiasm with which they invaded Germany and their keeness to be involved in the attack on Japan proper. If not, your implication that this was an ‘American plan’ is irrelevant to your later points given that the Soviets would have been involved in any event.
Secondly, ‘America split korea in two and gave North Korea to the Soviets’. The split was an arrangement designed to avoid conflict over a territory in which both sides felt they had an important stake. If your suggestion is that the Soviets would have left at an American request you are either trying to fool the ignorant or you’re insane. One only needs to look at the fate of East vs. West Germany and the Soviet enthusiasm for splitting Japan to realise that a) the split along the 38th parellel was a best-case scenario for South Korea and that b) the American-backed sides of every split territory fared rather better than their communist-backed other halves. South Korea and West Germany are very much in the ‘success’ column of American foreign policy analysis while chalking North Korea as a failure requires a lot more, and more honest, analysis than you’ve given so far.
B (e8227e) — 12/28/2006 @ 4:33 pmB,
You could go back to 1853, when President Millard Fillmore ordered Matthew Perry to open Japan up to the modern world if you wanted to trace American responsibility for a nuclear-armed North Korea to its source.
You could also touch on our handing Korea over to Japan in 1905 even though we had a defense treaty with Korea at the time.
It’s dishonest to only cite our successes with post-WWII Germany and Japan when arguing for American intervention into the affairs of other countries.
The current fiascos we have created in Afghanistan and Iraq are far more typical results of American foreign policy…
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/28/2006 @ 4:57 pmB:
Actually, the “battleplan” was hardly American. The eventual Soviet invasion of Japan had been agreed upon by early 1945; an agreement by FDR, Stalin, and Churchill—all of whom expected the war w/ Japan to stretch into 1946 or later and involve high casualties. (This, of course, was before we knew that the atomic bomb would work.)
The invasion of Manchuria was a logical first step, both in order to clear out one of the larger Japanese military formations (which, again, wasn’t even heavily deployed in Korea), as well as to gain access to ports that would provide jumping off points for the invasion of Japan.
Said invasion, in turn, was marked by not only clearing the Kwantung Army, but seizure of Sakhalin Island and the Kuriles (still in Soviet hands, much to Japanese dismay), again, in preparation for eventual landing operations against Hokkaido.
These, too, are facts or, as Neville calls them, “opinion.”
To Neville, blessed w/ historical amnesia, all this was American screw-ups, rather than part of Soviet strategic efforts to expand into Asia, or part of a larger, allied war effort against a fanatical foe.
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 12/28/2006 @ 5:00 pmFighting a “larger, fanatical foe,” LO?
Sound familiar?
We also funded the Viet Minh when they were fighting the Japanese…then prevented the Vietnamese from holding elections when it looked like out former allies would win…that turned out real good, didn’t it.
We funded the Taliban when we were fightin’ the Communist Menace! Another triumnph!
Now, in the name of fightin’ the dreaded Islamofascists…we are messing with elections and funding all kinds of unsavory characters…wonder how that is going to turn out?
I think we already know…
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/28/2006 @ 6:47 pmNeville,
The extent to which you’ll look back into history to find some American action to blame on an eventual nuclear North Korea is hilarious. Next you’ll be telling us that Pakistan’s nukes are an American screw-up because the North Koreans helped them, and we all know that in spite of North Korea being a Soviet and/or Chinese satellite for 50 years before getting nukes it was actually caused by an American action on Japan in 1853.
Pinning the blame for the current situation in Iraq on the US looks pretty sound, and it’s certainly our responsibility to solve those problems to the best of our ability, but your credibility goes out the window when you start dredging up Magna Carta as the cause of Russian revolution.
B (08fd8d) — 12/29/2006 @ 2:11 amWell, B,
As we’ve seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, America usually doesn’t have to wait very long to suffer the consequences of our foreign hijinx.
It was only a few years after WWII that our troops were dying to North Korean troops. And it only took a few years after we halted the elections in Vietnam before our troops were dying there, too.
It took a little longer before our past meddling in Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq started to cost us…but it did…and we are still paying for it now.
It would be nice if we didn’t ignore America’s many past failures in foreign meddling and tried to learn something from them.
The first step to that is to realize that post-WWII Germany and Japan were flukes…and to stop using them as examples to guide us.
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/29/2006 @ 2:45 amNeville,
We were discussing NK, not Afghanistan or Iraq. I’m quite happy to discuss American foreign policy and its successes/failures, but not if you assume without evidence that failure is inevitable or that every negative outcome is an American failure no matter the other parties involved.
B (08fd8d) — 12/29/2006 @ 11:14 amB,
I don’t assume foreign policy failures are inevitable, just that foreign policy successes are rare.
If an American foreign policy success depends on “other parties,” we probably shouldn’t be labeling those other parties “evil” and threaten to bomb/invade them unless we can back up those threats with action
Or maybe we should stop pursuing foreign policy victories that are so brittle that “other parties” can easily turn them into failures.
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/29/2006 @ 11:28 amNeville,
All foreign policy goals are potentially brittle because other parties are involved. This is particularly true of the Cold War. If we’d avoided any foreign policies which might conceivably be overturned we’d be in a worse position now than we are.
I’m happy to address failures and the causes thereof, but not if you want to be silly about it.
B (08fd8d) — 12/29/2006 @ 11:50 amB,
What do you think the odds are that Iraq will turn out to be a foreign policy victory?
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/29/2006 @ 11:54 amNeville,
I don’t know at this stage. There’s a great deal to be done, and the will shown so far leaves the end result open to question.
What I do know is that you haven’t shown much inclination to defend your initial argument, which makes me wonder why you raised it in the first place.
B (e8227e) — 12/29/2006 @ 1:53 pmWhich argument is that, B?
This thread has become rather…unfocused. My fault.
America’s responsibility in the creation of North Korea? Or Imperial Japan, for that matter?
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/29/2006 @ 2:08 pmNeville,
Both options are fine. They’re both examples of your apparent ‘responsibility for every ill in the world can somehow be traced back to American foreign policy’ attitude. The point in either case is that a rational examination of american foreign policy is impossible for those with preconceived notions about its effectiveness (whether those notions be positive or, in your case, negative).
B (e8227e) — 12/29/2006 @ 2:41 pmHere’s VDH at the Corner discussing the WWII positivism of Winston Churchill, someone I doubt you care for but whose vision and beliefs helped preserve the free world:
DRJ (51a774) — 12/29/2006 @ 3:51 pmBuck up, Neville. All is not lost in Iraq or the world, no matter how bleak you think it is.
My prior comment was for Neville but I neglected to add the opening address.
DRJ (51a774) — 12/29/2006 @ 3:53 pmDRJ,
That’s like saying you believe athletes who get paid millions of dollars a year saying they couldn’t have won the game if it wasn’t for the fans…
Britain (and America) could have sat out WWII and the Soviets still would have rolled into Berlin…
B,
There’s a subtle difference between pointing out the results of America’s foreign policy and blaming America for every ill in the world.
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/29/2006 @ 4:00 pmYes there is. The former slips into the latter when you make such leaps as to blame a nuclear armed North Korea on American policies toward other countries 150 years prior.
That would be a little like blaming Iraq’s current status on the Ottoman empire.
So, again, your tendancy to blame apparently unconnected phenomena on American foreign policy with no sound explanation leads me to suspect that you’re incapable of rationally analysing its strengths and weaknesses. That makes the whole exercise pointless.
B (e8227e) — 12/29/2006 @ 4:10 pmBut even if what you say were true, Neville, how can you believe that England, France, Belgium, etc., would have remained free for the past 50+ years without American intervention and support?
BTW, did you know that this week Britain will make the last payment on its WWII war debt? Good on the Brits.
DRJ (51a774) — 12/29/2006 @ 4:14 pmNext you’ll be telling us that Pakistan’s nukes are an American screw-up because the North Koreans helped them, and we all know that in spite of North Korea being a Soviet and/or Chinese satellite for 50 years before getting nukes it was actually caused by an American action on Japan in 1853.
On Aug. 25, 1801, at 12:52 PM, on the lawn of a Victorian home in southwestern Quebec City, a Monarch butterfly flapped its wings.
Bradley J. Fikes (19f52f) — 12/29/2006 @ 4:24 pmIt’s serious business going around the world overthrowing governments and arming rebels, B.
You seem to think America should get off with just a warning whenever one of our foreign schemes leads to the deaths of thousands…or millions.
Neocons seem to have the “gift” of being born without the capacity for guilt.
Maybe that is their defining characteristic…
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 12/29/2006 @ 5:29 pmBritain and America could have sat out the war, and the Soviets still would have won?
Good Lord, Neville, even your namesake wasn’t that myopic!
While the Soviets certainly lost huge numbers of troops, and paid much of the blood price for toppling the Nazi regime, the reality is that they could do so only with the help of the Western allies. Or did you forget that Stalin kept “begging,” to borrow your phrase, the Allies to open a Second Front?
The Soviet homefront could produce guns, or it could produce butter (in the form of transportation, food, and fuel). It couldn’t do both—in no small part thanks to Stalin’s mismanagement of both the war (in the early years) and the economy.
Soviet forces went to war in Studebaker trucks (most of the Studebaker production of trucks was, in fact, shipped to the USSR), and was fed on American-grown food. The massive losses in railway stock as the Germans conquered the industrialized portion of the USSR was made good by US diesel and electric engines (which brought the weapons from the Ural-relocated production facilities to the front lines).
Indeed, Soviet offensives had a stop-and-go quality (which helped the Germans in forming defenses) precisely b/c they lacked the organic transportation assets to sustain offensive ops over time.
This doesn’t even touch upon the number of German divisions tied down from Norway to Greece, divisions which would have been available for operations in the East had Great Britain stayed out of the war.
Of course, even more moot would’ve been the impact of starting Barbarossa six weeks earlier in 1941—a delay caused in no small part by the tying down of German forces in the Balkans, courtesy of British military and diplomatic action.
But I’m sure somewhere, somehow, the rise of Nazi Germany was actually the fault of the United States—perhaps for intervening in WWI, instead of allowing the Kaiser to rule?
Lurking Observer (9f6eea) — 12/29/2006 @ 11:18 pmNeville. I have no problem with a sensible discussion of American foreign policy including the failures and their consequences. As I’ve made clear I do have a problem with people for whom American foreign policy is the cause of every problem going. You’ve done nothing to dispell my impression that you’re one of those people, and when we all know in advance the slant in your view of the world it makes everything else you say suspect.
B (e8227e) — 12/30/2006 @ 3:03 am