Reader Comments for Righting America >>>
Excellent post! The pictures are a great addition!
This is not a great idea. Making a martyr of Saddam is a mistake. Your read it here first. And anyway, isn't the taking of human life immoral? Or something?
Saddam today, who tommorow? George, maybe? Be careful what you wish for, kiddies.
Cheers
Elroy
Lady Jane -
Thanks for your visit! Come back again real soon...you are a nice lady with obviously good taste! 
Elroy -
Ya' think? Gee, seems to me these asswipes don't need a martyr, or reason, to do what they do. Of course, they will say "This calls for JIHAD!!!" Again. And again. Like always.
I think it is a REALLY GOOD THING there is no President Yasser Abu Elroy in Iraq right now...I don't think an afternoon of Tea and Scones would be a proper punishment for the former "Butcher of Baghdad."
And, just to make sure you know, it is the IRAQI JUDICIARY that tried and convicted Saddam. You know, part of the Democratically elected government there?
But I'm sorry for your distress, matey. Almost sounds like you are going to miss him...
Is that the same 'democratically elected' government that drafted the Iraq constitution?
Cheers
Elroy
Timmer:
Well, of course it's good news. Although principally I'm against the death penalty, in Saddam's case I think an exception is justified; I would also have supported the hanging of the Nazi war criminals, had I been around at the time.
But it's also right to consider the massive price Iraq has paid and continues to pay for its regime change (a work in "progress").
Interestingly, N. Korea presents a much greater danger to the world and has effectively a nuclear cauldron in place, as well as an ICBM program in an advanced state of development. So, what are we going to do? Ineffectively starve [kill] x0,000s, possibly x00,000s or more for 5, 10, 20 years? This will not affect the nutjobs in power: they could hold out almost indefinitely AND carry on with their nuclear designs.
So, the casus belli for war with N. Korea (by the IC) is much more straightforward than in the case of Iraq (except that militarily speaking Iraq was expected to be a walkover). But will we use force against Kim Jong Il, despite the fact that there would be clear gains to be obtained? No, we'll probably starve another half a million kids or so first...
Elroy:
To some Baathists and Sunnis Saddam will always be a martyr, dead or alive. And alive there's always the possibility they will attempt to free him. No, throw him out of this mortal coil after his appeal, I say...
Gert -
Unfortunately, you are mistaken. Iraq was firing on coalition aircraft almost daily; spent over a decade defying U.N. sanctions, played games with weapons inspectors and broke well over a dozen resolutions. The U.S. went to the U.N. and got a resolution for "serious consequences" if Saddam did not comply - which he did not.
Then, the president went to the U.S. Congress and got authorization to use force. He even gave Saddam one last chance to leave Iraq and request sanctuary in another country, which he did not do (I bet he regrets THAT ONE right about now!).
This set of circumstances is not the same for North Korea. Given time, exhausted diplomacy, broken resolutions and a final resolution to face "serious consequences," then it might just come down to it.
And there is no way to know at what point Saddam would have been by now with Nuclear technology -- it isn't like he lacked for funding (Oil for Food debacle) or the desire.
But now, Kim Jung Il has agreed to return to 6-party talks. Hey, Bush is acting MULTILATERALLY!!! Isn't that exactly what the world has screamed for him to do?
T
Interesting spin on the Iraq situation, Timmer; wrong, but interesting nonetheless. And vis a vis Bush, why must we credit him for doing the right thing and behaving, finally, in a responsible manner? He's only doing what he has to do, and what thousand of dead and wounded on both sides wish he had done in 2003. Why must he always benefit from low expectations?
Cheers
Elroy
Timmer:
"And there is no way to know at what point Saddam would have been by now with Nuclear technology -- it isn't like he lacked for funding (Oil for Food debacle) or the desire."
You're not being serious here. You know damn well what it takes to produce a nuclear weapon: some 400,000 people were involved in the production of the US's first primitive nukes.
Look at the extent of Iran's facilities.
These aren't things you can hide, certainly not in an occupied country. The regime had nothing, period. Even a million tonnes of yellow cake don't make a bomb with out enrichment facilities for a U 235-based nuke or at least a light water reactor to produce R-grade Pu 239 based "Fat Man", you know that as well as I do. Not to mention extensive know-how.
The regime posed no threat to the outside world, Bush has openly admitted that. Why the stubbornness on your part? That some still fall for the past rhetoric I can understand, but you? My most reasonable Republican? Come off it...
Timmer is your most reasonable Republican? I'm afraid. Very afraid.
Cheers
Elroy
Elroy -
I see that you do not refute these facts...just simply saying "wrong" just doesn't cut it, Yasser!
Gert -
Actually, it is you who is being less than truthful my friend. Look, Nuclear Technology IS FOR SALE...did you not read about Mr. Kahn of Pakistan who was marketing the technology? And why couldn't someone like Saddam have simply bought warheads from HIS NEIGHBOR Iran...given his unlimited oil revenues (thanks to the ridiculous "Oil for Food" B.S.).
You think the wheel had to be re-invented? Do you honestly think another "400,000 people" might be needed in every case now?
Did you not see the paintings in one of Saddams' throne rooms depicting Iraqi nuclear missiles launching toward Israel?
There are many uncovered documents still being translated that corraborate Saddam's oft-stated intention of obtaining nuclear weaponry. You are not this naive youself, mate!
And Bush made no such statement...show me this quote.
And thanks for the oblique compliment (I'll choose to take it that way, in any case! )
Oh, I'm sorry Timmer; am being selective of the subjects I choose to address? Or dismissing them in one word with no further dicscussion? Welcome to the wunnerful world of political debate conservative style! Just ask Amy! Just ask yourself!
Yep, instead of knocking myself out writing detailed and concise arguments that get met with one word rebuttals, I thought I'd put the boot on the other foot and see how you liked it. And guess what? You didn't! How predictable!
When time permits I will, again, explain the invasion of Iraq to you. Meanwhile, there are plenty of web sites that will set out the alternative viewpoints. Go on, take a peek – it might take your mind off them pesky mid-terms!
Cheers
Elroy
Timmer:
"did you not read about Mr. Kahn of Pakistan who was marketing the technology? And why couldn't someone like Saddam have simply bought warheads from HIS NEIGHBOR Iran...given his unlimited oil revenues (thanks to the ridiculous "Oil for Food" B.S.)."
Iran doesn't have any nukes, you know that as well as I do. And there was no love lost between these two countries anyway. Have you forgotten the Iraq-on-Iran war, tacitly supported by the US?
No nuclear capability was ever found, not by the inspectors, not by the Coalition.
"Did you not see the paintings in one of Saddams' throne rooms depicting Iraqi nuclear missiles launching toward Israel?"
Paintings are proof of nukes now? Proof of a wishful imagination perhaps but no more. Perhaps we should arrest people that have a Che Guevara T-shirt or bedroom poster too?
"There are many uncovered documents still being translated that corraborate Saddam's oft-stated intention of obtaining nuclear weaponry. You are not this naive youself, mate!"
There's a difference between intention or desire and capability, it seems that difference is lost on you. Meanwhile N. Korea has almost everything it needs to go ahead in the nuclear game.
"And Bush made no such statement...show me this quote."
Bush made two separate admissions regarding the absence of WMD and the non-existence of the 9/11 link: you know that too.
If you're still going to defend the casus belli in the case of Iraq, fine, but you'll need to find something else: the official narrative has been discredited by its authors.
Commenting by HaloScan
