printAccording to the UN, nearly 6,600 civilians were killed in Iraq in two months. What a shame it’s too late to beg Saddam Hussein to take us back and restore law and order to Iraq. We’d promise solemnly never to mess with him again, just so long as he kept his mitts off nukes. Secretly, that’s what anyone with a heart and a head would wish for. This Iraqi boy does. Read about what a day in his life looks like. But then we (who opposed the war, from the get-go, and for all the right reasons) told you so, didn’t we?
And Saddam himself, through his lawyer, says he’s ready and willing to set things right again. (Link via The Hatfill Project.)
All the “I Told You Sos” in print, even those as eloquent as yours, solve nothing. I concede that if you had been President we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq. But, you weren’t so we did. What now? The only alternative I hear is from the empty suits in congress and in the MSM to get out right away. That would be nice but when that happens the blood will flow in the streets of Iraq as vengence takers and Muslims who don’t like the way other Muslims worship will commence wholesale slaughter of each other. The figure of 6600 in two months will pale to insignificance. Does anybody have any other idea besides bashing Bush? Maybe he needs it but that particular approach doesn’t take much imagination or deep thinking. It’s as if everybody is saying “I don’t know what the answer is so lets rip dubya some more and maybe nobody will notice that I’m clueless too”.
Let’s turn Saddam loose and I guarantee he will restore order. He won’t pussy-foot around like we do. He will just kill anybody he doesn’t like and order will be restored. Funny how a few hangings, beheadings and firing squads will settle folks right down.
That makes about as much sense as anything else I’ve heard.
Mr. Huggins,
Why, exactly, should we care if Muslims elect to slaughter one another? After all, if they’re busy slaughtering each other, they’ll have fewer resources and less energy to expend on the jihad against the west.
I agree with Auster and West’s general strategy of dealing with Muslims: Rollback (meaning deporting them from the west and setting policies in place that encourage them to leave), contain (no more expansion of Dar-al-Islam – and that includes Israel), divide (exploit internal divisions among them, and encourage strife and civil war), and isolate (cut them off economically from the rest of the world as much as possible).
[Note: BAB supports free and unfettered trade; free trade does not necessitate or imply the free movement of people from country to country. However, trade brings about economic interdependence between individuals. Once the invisible hand of self-interest is at play, war is less likely. That’s the beauty of free markets. Moreover, why penalize Iranians, for example, for the policies of their government? It amazes me that we want to invade them to free them, but we won’t trade with them. The latter is a sure way to freedom; the former, well, it gives us Iraq.—ILANA]
The PC-addled west is just amazing. Take Sudan, for example. The Bonos, Busheviks, Imam Blairistani and all the rest have their panties in a twist because some Arab wannabes (the Janjaweed) are busy burning and slaughtering some other (more African-looking) muslims in the western part of the country (Darfur). The genocide and enslavement of the African Christians and Animists over the last two decades (over 2 million dead) is simply ignored altogether.
The only folks in Iraq who’ve shown any loyalty to the US are the Kurds, who should be allowed to run their own country as they see fit. Most of the Kurds appear to value their Kurdishness over the Sunni Islam that most practice. Islam has often been used as a vehicle for Arab supremacism over the centuries (as it is in Darfur presently), a fact the Kurds are well aware of. This is something we should exploit. Instead the morons in charge from Downing Street to DC insist on a multi-ethnic fantasyland called Iraq.
The real tragedy of Iraq is that folks like Ilana were simply ignored in the run-up to all this. We had no serious debate about why we were going to war against Iraq, and even very observant folks like Larry Auster and others fell for the WMD scam. I fell for it too, sad to say. The whole constitutional process broke down.
Ilana correctly pointed out that it is the sole prerogative of Congress to decare war. However, since the US signed on to the UN treaty in the late 1940s, that constitutional mandate has been given to he executive branch. The US has not issued a formal declaration of war since 1941.
Carolus, a good point about the inevitibility of Muslims slaughtering each other. But, as cold blooded as I often sound, I just hate to think that this coming blood bath was caused by us.
I fell for all the WMD stuff too because we know that Saddam used them on the Kurds after Desert Storm and killed many. I also was glad that we were acting instead of reacting. It all didn’t work and now we have a mess and no good way out. Worst of all, Mercer is inserting her barbs squarely in my gluteus maximus over this whole deal. I would rather fight the Republican Guard. [LOL]
Ilana states:
“BAB supports free and unfettered trade; free trade does not necessitate or imply the free movement of people from country to country. However, trade brings about economic interdependence between individuals. Once the invisible hand of self-interest is at play, war is less likely. That’s the beauty of free markets. Moreover, why penalize Iranians, for example, for the policies of their government? It amazes me that we want to invade them to free them, but we won’t trade with them. The latter is a sure way to freedom; the former, well, it gives us Iraq.”
A most interesting an really provacative point, Ilana. The reality is that thanks to their great abundance of petroleum, and our willingness to trade with them for it, has resulted in all manner of moral and security compromises in the west. This doesn’t nevessarily invalidate your point, though. It just illuminates the corruption and degeneracy of our wn leaders.
A truly honest free trade might arguably have the reverse effect if our own society were self-confident. Just throwing out an idea – but is it possible that our civilizational crisis is due more to this pervasive self-hatred than to Dar-al-Islam’s inherent strength? If there had been free and fair trade between 19th centiury Europe and Dar-al-Islam, would islamic ideology have been weakened thanks to economic self-interest? It’s an interesting question that no-one has explored to my knowledge.