India's "Saddam Hussein" village

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Aeson


Well, you're 1-1 now. I don't think we should necessarily leave anyway, though unless we change directions rather drastically in how we are there, we probably should. I just think we will leave before Iraq is stable.

I didn't necessarily mean we spirit him out and then leave either. That would be one option, but there are others. As I mentioned, we could have made a (public) diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to agree to an international trial. And then left them to their own devices if/when they denied that request. Whether or not we withdrew at that point, we would have distanced ourselves more from his execution. (Obviously not compatible with having more leverage in the nature of the execution though.)

how do we leave them to their own devices without withdrawing? Pull back to barracks while the Iraq goes to hell (and yeah, smartasses, something a lot worse than the current mess) With US bases being surrounded and cut off by insurgents, Mahdi army, etc. Nope. You either take a SIDE in Iraq, or you get the hell out. Staying there while "leaving them to their own devices" makes no sense.

So tell me, which Arab city is up in flames cause of the execution. I mean we can live with babies named Saddam. Like the man, said, they used to name babies for OBL there. Not saying we should go out of our way to piss folks off, but it still seems to me weve got better uses for our limited leverage. Maybe some bozo cussing Saddam as he dies bothers YOU more than ties between the Mahdi Army and Iraqi Interior Ministry, but Id say the latter is of more concern to me. And is just as likely to create problems for us in the region.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Aeson
I am (and always was) quite a bit more worried about religious fundamentalism than communism. We knew that MAD had a chance to work with the USSR (and us too). With religious fundamentalism, they'd welcome the chance at MAD.

Me too, and this concern influences my position on matters like the Israel-Iran Nuke thread and the Afghan War in the Khalilzad thread.

When I was a kid my Dad was a negotiator in the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaties in the 1970's. He explained to me at the time that these talks were possible because the USSR was a rational adversery that didn't want nuclear war any more than we did.

The USSR was armed to the teeth because it had been attacked in 1941 and lost over 20 million people. It's nuclear arsenal was about deterrence, like ours, and MAD worked.

Religious fundamentalists don't care about MAD, and that's the problem.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
how do we leave them to their own devices without withdrawing?

I was talking about the trial and execution of Saddam. It seems what actually happened would be a good example of "leaving them to their own devices" in that context.

I am sure you would agree on that point, as if we were actually running the trial and/or execution, your position in the whole debate about "leverage" is blown to hell.

Maybe some bozo cussing Saddam as he dies bothers YOU more than ties between the Mahdi Army and Iraqi Interior Ministry, but Id say the latter is of more concern to me.

I have not stated anything about my views on the ties between the Mahdi Army and Iraqi Interior Ministry. Nice divination attempt though! You're 1-2

Though re-reading what you had initially "called"... it seems you were rather off. I am against the DP it is true, but everything else you initially said is wrong. Even your interpretation of my stance on the DP was incorrect, as you only applied it to "guys like Saddam", whereas I oppose the DP in all cases. Also, I did not ignore that the US didn't hang Saddam. Nor did I ever state that the reason to not kill people was to avoid being hated, it's obviously far more in-depth than that. I won't take back that initial 1, even though it was not deserved on your part, as it was a fault on my part to have confirmed the award. But bear in mind you are 0-3 at this point strictly on merit.

Perhaps if you wish to continue discussing my statements with me, you should stop trying to read my mind and start reading my posts instead?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by aneeshm
In a sense, you're right - they are living in a world so divorced from reality that the idea of the Indian state may not mean much to them at all, much less the concept of being a traitor to it.

Weren't you praising ignorant villagers who say "To hell with the state" just one day ago?