Murderous Savages

A series of carbombings in Baghdad have left 35 children dead.

At this stage I don’t give a damn about WMDs or Saddam or the impotent United Nations. The war was nearly two years ago. What I want to know if what we’re going to do about the murderous bastards in Iraq right now.

Here’s a hint: if we surrender and pull out now, more children are going to die. If we abrogate our responsibilities in the naive hope that some foreign power will save our bacon, more children will die.

The only way to end the violence is to make sure that any of the bastards who would do such a thing are rotting in prison or burning in Hell. Preferably the latter.

6 thoughts on “Murderous Savages

  1. What murderous bastards? I’m still living the Bush fantasy world where we’re being greeted as liberators and have established a bastion of democracy in Iraq. When talk of an Iraqi government coup staged by Americans being likely to inspire the very kinds of murderous bastards you’re now so incensed at, the response by the Bush administration and his blogosphere stooges was “la-la-la-la-la…I can’t hear you.” Perhaps if you guys had thought this through a little bit back when you were busy pouring out all your bottles of French wine in March 2003, you wouldn’t have to ask “what we’re going to do about the murderous bastards RIGHT NOW.”

  2. Leaving Saddam Hussein was never a viable option. Under Saddam, just as many if not more innocent Iraqis would be dying. Our goal is not to sit around and let the Middle East continue to be a petri dish for terrorism. After September 11 our goal should have been clear to all – either we eradicate radical Islam as a viable force as we did with Naziism and Japanese expansionism, or the next time the death toll would be greater than 3000. Iraq was a necessary step on that road.

    Why did we invade Italy in World War II? Italy had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. They didn’t pose a threat to the United States – yet we invaded Italy because that was part of the stategy to undermine the Axis and win the war. The same holds true in Iraq today.

  3. “Leaving Saddam Hussein was never an option”

    That’s funny. It was an option for the first quarter century of his dictatorship. That argument may have had some credence back in the days when he suspected of having weapons of mass destruction, but attempting to make the argument that overthrowing Saddam was imperative to our national security retroactive to a fruitless 18-month WMD search will only work on those still brainwashed into believing we’re attacking Iraq to avenge the 9-11 attacks.

    All of this is irrelevant to your original post and my initial retort, which you are understandably trying to keep your distance from. It appears that it never occurred to you when asking “What are we gonna do about these murderous bastards now?” that the answer to that question should have been considered before we put the first soldier on the ground. I maintain, along with the majority of Americans, that war with Iraq was a bad idea. Even those who still think the war was worthwhile would have to concede that a little more time spent planning for the occupation and a little less time bashing the French 18 months ago would have gone a long way towards keeping headlines like “Murderous Savages” off of blogs.

  4. The mistakes that were made were not going into Fallujah and letting the Fallujah Brigades take responsibility. The mistakes certainly had nothing to do with sucking up to the French or the impotent United Nations.

    Saddam Hussein could not be contained forever, and our choice was between a sanctions regime that was crumbling (and if you’d read Dr. Obeidi’s book you’d know that Saddam was waiting for the end of the sanctions to jumpstart his WMD programs) or removing the threat. Given the intelligence we had at the time indicated strongly that Saddam Hussein did have WMDs (along with the intelligence from the UK, Italy, France, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, etc.) the choice was clear.

    “Given the intelligence we had at the time indicated strongly that Saddam Hussein did have WMDs (along with the intelligence from the UK, Italy, France, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, etc.) the choice was clear.”

    This sentence is not true and has never been. The UK intelligence proving the existence of WMDs was a fake from a californian student dating from 1991! The “45 minutes” is just one proof of how these reports were political command and not facts from security services! For Italy, I don’t know, but this country has never been famous for the high quality of their secret services. they don’t even have their own satellites!!!

    For all other nations, at least France, they would have supported the war if the threat had been so present and imminent. This wasn’t the case. Everyone AT THE TIME knew that the nuclear link was a fake, that C.Powell presentation was a fake, and reality took you down to iraqi basements so that we all know the truth now: THERE WAS NOTHING!!

    No one can still pretend today that the whole world believed in these lies forged by the Bush Administration.

    We called it a lie then. We call it a lie now.

  6. What I forgot to mention is that the fakes were known to be fake at the time or shorlty after their release!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.