If Saddam Had Stayed

[Praktik]

I am now playing the world's smallest violin...

 

[Toontown]

The worst tyrant in the region got stomped and replaced with a government the Iraqis chose themselves. Get over it already.

Get over it? But they have not yet begun to stop bashing Bush.

Seriously, they can't get over it. They're too busy playing the world's smallest violin. It's kind of like stacking BB's except it's a little tiny violin and a little tiny bow.

 

[Toontown]

Poor America - nobly shouldering the burden of world justice alone in a valiant and unending struggle. And worse, people say mean things about them after all they've done for everyone!!!

Yeah, it's a great job, isn't it. Anyone want it?

<crickets>

No? Well, goodbye, and good luck. Don't call us. We'll call you.

 

[leftysergeant]

The worst tyrant in the region got stomped and replaced with a government the Iraqis chose themselves. Get over it already.

Yeah, right, after we told them that they had to do it within the framework that WE imposed on them at the point of a gun.

That aint liberation.

 

[leftysergeant]

Yeah, it's a great job, isn't it. Anyone want it?

<crickets>

No? Well, goodbye, and good luck. Don't call us. We'll call you.

Maybe that's because only a freaking moron thinks the job needs to be done.

 

[Toontown]

Maybe that's because only a freaking moron thinks the job needs to be done.

So, the UN Security Council that passed UNSCR 1441 were morons? Or were they just bluffing? Wouldn't they still be morons if they were just bluffing?

What I'm asking is, would non-morons pass all those resolutions and issue all those threats against Iraq if they didn't think international law ought to be enforced against Iraq? They seemed quite insistent.

Or are there other possibilities as to who are in fact the morons?

 

[leftysergeant]

So, the UN Security Council that passed UNSCR 1441 were morons? Or were they just bluffing? Wouldn't they still be morons if they were just bluffing?

They kept that option alive to pressure Saddam to cooperate. I doubt that anybody thought that the Shrub was enough an idiot to actually attack while they were still getting consessions out of Saddam.

Did you notice how many of them offered material aid to Oil Boy when he was ready to launch?

How many countries proved themselves stupid here?

 

[Toontown]

Maybe that's because only a freaking moron thinks the job needs to be done.

And there is, of course, yet another problem with your declaration: your declaration means, if true, that freaking morons both believed the job needed to be done, and did it.

Which would mean, in turn, that international law is both decided and enforced by freaking morons, while all-knowing internet prole-capped leftists stand idly by, flummoxed and powerless, complaining bitterly.

That's a scary thought. That would mean morons have all the power, while the intelligent ones are powerless and wearing prole caps. How could that be? Does stupidity somehow attract power, while all-knowingness repels power but attracts prole caps?

That would be some strange ****.

 

[Toontown]

They kept that option alive to pressure Saddam to cooperate. I doubt that anybody thought that the Shrub was enough an idiot to actually attack while they were still getting consessions out of Saddam.

Was that their game? You think they were bluffing, and you knew they were bluffing, but Saddam was supposed to be fooled by their obvious bluff?

They didn't know that regime change in Iraq had been a US foreign policy objective since 1998, when the Iraq Liberation Resolution was passed by congress and signed by Clinton? Yuh think?

Or perhaps it is only you who didn't know that.

You seem to be seriously contradicting yourself now. Are you arguing that only morons think the job of enforcing international law needs to be done, or are you simply objecting to the manner in which it was done?

Did you notice how many of them offered material aid to Oil Boy when he was ready to launch?

Yes. Several did.

But your question is meaningless relative to the issue at hand. There is apparently no law against countries failing to help enforce international law. Some of the biggest and baddest ones do that all the time. For example, when was the last time Russia or China provided material support to a UN police action?

How many countries proved themselves stupid here?

"Stupid" by whose standards? Yours?

I am not required to either speculate on or honor your standards of stupidity, whatever they are.

 

[leftysergeant]

I am not required to either speculate on or honor your standards of stupidity, whatever they are.

Stupid is kicking a hornet's nest when you're butt naked.

We were in a real war that was our business elsewhere and some drooling moron decided to open up an unrelated second front.

That is stupid.

 

[Virus]

Stupid is kicking a hornet's nest when you're butt naked.

We were in a real war that was our business elsewhere and some drooling moron decided to open up an unrelated second front.

That is stupid.

So it's only the timing of the Iraqi liberation you disagree with?

 

[leftysergeant]

So it's only the timing of the Iraqi liberation you disagree with?

No. My problem is that the idiot gave the order to invade at all. It was never our duty to do that. There were other options open to him. He chose the most ghastly and expensive and barbaric.

He had intended to invade before he was even sworn in as POTUS. The UN resolution is a smoke screen.

There was certainly no UN mandate that he screrw up their ecconomy by placing Friedmanite crap in the new constitution. That was part of why he invaded. PNAC wanted a test bed to prove that their idiocy could be made to work.

It didn't.

Eisenhower was right about the miltary/industrial complex.

And the Shrub and his goons learned the wrong lessons from Hitler.

 

[Toontown]

Stupid is kicking a hornet's nest when you're butt naked.

We were in a real war that was our business elsewhere and some drooling moron decided to open up an unrelated second front.

That is stupid.

I disagree with the entirety of your premises.

1. We were not "butt naked" when we kicked the hornet's nest.

2. The "real war" wasn't that much of a war. Still isn't. The Afghanistan operation is mostly a near-impossible exercise in social engineering. Think about it. According to all the experts, success in Afghanistan depends mostly on extracting the heads from the asses of people who meekly endure the head-chopping, acid-tossing Taliban, but get all protesty when a tiny church half a world away threatens to burn a couple of Korans. This is the mentality which must be fundamentally altered in order to achieve success in this "real war", which, as I've said, is more like psychotherapy than war. I wish us luck, but Iraq was the "real war" we could win, and Iraq is orders of magnitude more important than Afghanistan.

3. It wasn't just "one drooling moron" who decided to carry out the Clinton sanction on Saddam. Many "drooling morons" were involved, including the vast majority of democrats, who only switched sides later, when it became politically expedient to attempt to sabotage the Iraq operation. Obama was the only viable democrat presidential candidate democrats could find who had not supported the Clinton sanction before switching sides. Except Kucinich, who wasn't all that viable, and needed to shut up more than anything else. So the dems slapped duct tape over Kucinich's mouth, sabotaged Hillary, and pushed Obama on to a "glory" he probably wishes he had never seen. Oh well. At least Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, apparently for doing exactly what McCain would have done. That's a feat McCain never could have accomplished. Admittedly, the whole thing was like a popularity contest gone horribly awry, but it still looks good in the old trophy case.

Is this a crazy, mixed up, shook up world 'cept for Lola, or what.

But I digress.

All in all, I remain unimpressed with your attempts to slyly, almost imperceptibly inch the goal posts rightward after you found out the whole regime change in Iraq thing was originally Clinton's idea.

 

[leftysergeant]

I disagree with the entirety of your premises.

1. We were not "butt naked" when we kicked the hornet's nest.

We did not have the resources to conduct the operation properly. Shinseki told the merry morons that and got fired. Then that idiot Rumsfeld made the remark that "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want." This was the most idiotic thing ever out of his mouth, and he has made some dirt-dumb, weaselly remarks in his life.

Read Clausewitz, like Rummy should have. One of the reasons to delay an action in war is that success now is less likely than success later. If you plan on going to war, and are not in immediate danger, you build the bloody army you need.

But that costs money and old Stuck-on-Stupid knew that that would have to be paid for by a tax increase and that was counter to what his owners wanted him to do.

2. The "real war" wasn't that much of a war. Still isn't.

You sounmd like you get your talking points from Rummy's ear crickets. Our ENEMY operated out of Afghanistan and we were there to get him. But, given that the least capable war leaders in two centuries were running the operation for us, I guess I have to agree that it was doomed to failure.

You sound like Rummy did when he whined about "There are no good targets in Afghanistan."

The sick slimeball wanted a showy and profitable war. May he burn in hell.

I wish us luck, but Iraq was the "real war" we could win, and Iraq is orders of magnitude more important than Afghanistan.

Saddam didn't attack us. He was not a threat to us until after some Republican nitwit convinced him that we didn't care what he did to Kuwait when Kuwait was stealing his oil. The PNAC mob hit the ground with the intention of starting a war in December of 2000.

3. It wasn't just "one drooling moron" who decided to carry out the Clinton sanction on Saddam.

Clinton never had any intention of invading Iraq. We couldn't have afforded it even when we had a good ecconomic policy in place.

Many "drooling morons" were involved, including the vast majority of democrats, who only switched sides later, when it became politically expedient to attempt to sabotage the Iraq operation. Obama was the only viable democrat presidential candidate democrats could find who had not supported the Clinton sanction before switching sides.

He supported the sanctions, but not the invasion. You are hung up on the idea that war is the only answer. It isn't. War is a symptom of failure.

Oh well. At least Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, apparently for doing exactly what McCain would have done. That's a feat McCain never could have accomplished. Admittedly, the whole thing was like a popularity contest gone horribly awry, but it still looks good in the old trophy case.

Wrong. McCain is just as nutty as Rummy and would have probably opened a third front just for the glory of it. Little hint. Being an airplane driver does not mean you know strategy. Do learn the difference between tactics and strategy before you come back at me on the point of McCain's fitness for command.

Is

 

[Toontown]

We did not have the resources to conduct the operation properly.

You can only support that assertion if the new Iraq collapses. Short of that, the operation succeeded with a fraction of the casualties of any other invasion/occupation we' ve done - which would mean we had the resources to succeed. I'm willing to wait to see if the new Iraq collapses before bailing off into a sea of bald assertions and attributions of motive. Are you?

You sounmd like you get your talking points from Rummy's ear crickets.

And you sound like you get yours from fatboy Moore the propaganda whore.

The Bush administration did err in assuming other civilized countries, which had passed UNSCR 1441, would pitch in and help with the occupation and occupation of Iraq. But that didn't happen. The Bush administration should not have been surprised by that, and should have expected it. That was a "big mistake".

Our ENEMY operated out of Afghanistan and we were there to get him. But, given that the least capable war leaders in two centuries were running the operation for us, I guess I have to agree that it was doomed to failure.

Do you always twist everything all up into little twisted propagandistic balls that have to be laboriously untwisted?

It almost worked. I almost didn't respond to this post.

Firstly, the original PUNITIVE operation against al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts was quite successful and quite punitive, as it should have been. However, the subsequent nearly decade long attempts to psychotherapize the Afghans into becoming a modern democratic republic are probably doomed to failure. I'm not saying we shouldn't try it, I'm just saying it's probably doomed to failure. And let me reiterate, that's the extended psychotherapy session I'm referring to, not the highly successful and ongoing punitive attacks on al Qaeda and the Taliban.

We don't have an army of psychotherapists. We have a small army of troops. But I suppose you psychotherapize with the army you have, not with the army of psychotherapists you wish you had.

Saddam didn't attack us.

Neither did Hitler. Geopolitically, your statement is meaningless.

He was not a threat to us until after some Republican nitwit convinced him that we didn't care what he did to Kuwait when Kuwait was stealing his oil.

Poor Saddam. They were stealing his oil? Well. In that case, they deserved to be forcibly impressed into Saddam's chamber of horrors, the oil-stealing bastards. Anyone caught or even accused of stealing oil gits hung. It's the code of the West.

And "some Republican nitwit" convinced him we didn't care what he did to Kuwait? Dude, I read what the ambassador said. Saddam heard what he wanted to hear, not what she said.

<bald assertion snipped>

Clinton never had any intention of invading Iraq. We couldn't have afforded it even when we had a good ecconomic policy in place.

You really believe Clinton, after fathering the regime change policy, would not have used the green light to invade Iraq after 9/11? You think that little of him? Well, I think more highly of him than that. Even though he did lie about his support of the invasion later, after the political winds changed. Bill is not a bad man, he just believes lying to cover one's political backside is a big and important part of politics. At any rate, here's what he really thought, when he was actually for it before he was against it:


Clinton's words on Bush:

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

Clinton's words in The Guardian, in support of Blair:

"As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam.

I wish that Russia and France had supported Blair's resolution. Then, Hans Blix and his inspectors would have been given more time and support for their work. But that's not where we are. Blair is in a position not of his own making, because Iraq and other nations were unwilling to follow the logic of 1441."

Just as you and the rest of the left are "unwilling to follow the logic of 1441." Damn. It must be a biatch when you always thought the great Bill Clinton was with you on the "illegality" of the Iraq regime change. And then it turns out he was only against it after he was for it, because it became politically expedient to be against it.

He supported the sanctions, but not the invasion. You are hung up on the idea that war is the only answer. It isn't. War is a symptom of failure.

Wrong. As noted above, Clinton's only quibble with Bush's decision to invade was to the extent that he, Clinton, would have waited until the inspectors finished poking around before invading. But that was when He was for it, before he was against it.

See, as I explained way back there, the purpose of 1441 was to give Saddam one last chance to convince all his prospective overthrowers that he really wasn't worth overthrowing. Saddam failed to convince them, and that's why he lies moldering in his grave. Granted, he convinced you. But that's beside the point.

Wrong. McCain is just as nutty as Rummy and would have probably opened a third front just for the glory of it.

Objection! Calls for speculation in order to provide false support for a bald attribution of motive.

Damn. You people will try anything, won't you.

Little hint.

Oh no...I had hoped we could avoid another one of those...

Being an airplane driver does not mean you know strategy. Do learn the difference between tactics and strategy before you come back at me on the point of McCain's fitness for command.

Huh. That would be an average hint if I had in fact come at you on the point of McCain's fitness for command. What I did do was merely point out the indifference between what Obama is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and what McCain said he would do - that being finish the job in Iraq and escalate in Afghanistan. The only difference being, Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize, and McCain never would have gotten one of those. Those Europeans are rather odd ducks. I think they gave Arafat a peace prize too, for spending a lifetime refusing to make peace with Israel.

Go figure. Is this a crazy, mixed up, shook up world 'cept for Lola, or what.

 

[Virus]

Hillary Clinton in 2002;

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, co More..mfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

 

[leftysergeant]

Hillary Clinton in 2002;

She was acting on the intelligence that was given to her.

Of course, on its way to her, it passed though the hands of some creeps who had no relationship with reality and no reason to let reality get close to anyone else.

To call anything that passed through the hands of Rummy or that mob "intelligence" is oxymoronic on many levels.

A lot of otherwise decent people went along with the Shrub because they could not believe that he could be such a dastardly liar.

He never once fooled me.

 

[Virus]

She was acting on the intelligence that was given to her.

Of course, on its way to her, it passed though the hands of some creeps who had no relationship with reality and no reason to let reality get close to anyone else.

To call anything that passed through the hands of Rummy or that mob "intelligence" is oxymoronic on many levels.

A lot of otherwise decent people went along with the Shrub because they could not believe that he could be such a dastardly liar.

He never once fooled me.

Prove he falsified intelligence. Prove it was doctored before the democrats got to see it.

 

[leftysergeant]

Prove he falsified intelligence. Prove it was doctored before the democrats got to see it.

YELLOW CAKE.

Rummy never did a thing right in his life.

 

[Virus]

That's not proof. That's just saying words in a large font.