Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Hussein hangs for killing 148 shiites.

Today 89 people died in baghdad.

but Simberg will say nothing for them.

Posted by anonymous at December 29, 2006 07:53 PM

Your post title is exactly the thought and comment I made elsewhere a few hours ago.

One less tyrant in the world. Can't ask for a better end to a year.

Posted by John Irving at December 29, 2006 07:55 PM

I have to say, that that's one of the most vile and dishonest comments that you've ever made here. And that's a high bar, Anonymous Moron.

Do you really believe that his vast crimes against humanity were encircled by the minimal indictment and conviction for which he died? If so, you live in a completely alternate reality.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 29, 2006 07:56 PM

Rand, I think thats been obvious for a while.

Posted by John Irving at December 29, 2006 08:23 PM

"Reality" is not a word I would use in classifying the dream state that fool lives in...

Posted by Greg at December 29, 2006 08:30 PM

Based on recent obituaries, the thing to have done would be to have given Saddam a full, comprehensive and unconditional pardon, along with a Presidential Library in Tikrit.

This and only this would have allowed Iraq to put its long national nightmare behind it.

Posted by Duncan Young at December 29, 2006 09:35 PM

Duncan, I'm no fan of Nixon, and I think he didn't get nearly the vilification that he deserved. But Nixon's crimes and Saddam's are not remotely comparable.

Posted by Robin Goodfellow at December 29, 2006 09:52 PM

There was the little matter of bombing Cambodia back into the stone age. Hitchens, for one, has some pretty strong views on that. But that was more of a jab at those trying to find something nice to say about what everyone would probably privately admit to being an exceptionally weak Presidency.

But as for this event, well, please excuse me while I engage in the Mother of all slowclaps.

It wasn't worth it, the death, the destruction; all for this sad little nano-Nuremberg reanactment (or at least Nuremberg how the Soviets had wanted to run it).

As one former Defence Secretary once said;
"How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? And the answer I would give is not very damn many"

Posted by Duncan Young at December 29, 2006 10:24 PM

I'm sorry Rand, but I don't feel so right about celebrating his execution.

He was an absolute monster who ruthlessly slaughtered tens of thousands, but surely we as a enlightened western society should be above distributing justice by his barbaric methods? We should have sent him off on a long vacation to The Hague with Milan Babić.

Posted by Adrasteia at December 29, 2006 11:45 PM

...I've been running a play-by-play of the highlights of this event on OMBlog. The first images from the hanging are up now, and I'm just waiting for the actual video links to start showing up. I fully predict that when the full videos leak out, it'll be the most in-demand non-sex snuff flick since the Zapruder Film and the Ruby-Oswald Encounter.

http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld

Posted by OM at December 30, 2006 03:14 AM

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I'm hoping that they drain the body of blood and sell it in bottles. I would pay good money to drink the blood of that vile tyrant while endlessly watching videos of his hanging. People like him are sick!

Posted by Tim Rutterford at December 30, 2006 06:18 AM

I'm not celebrating. I'm simply noting that the end is a good thing, and long overdue. And Duncan, no one said that this is the sole result of the Iraq campaign, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 30, 2006 06:59 AM

Iraqis' long nightmare is over.

Posted by Leland at December 30, 2006 07:13 AM

Tim Rutterford, if you try that, get some shots first. Just saying . . .

As for me? That is way too creepy to even think about.

Posted by Bill White at December 30, 2006 07:25 AM

It's always amusing (in a sad way) how Lefties hold Richard Nixon/Henry Kissinger responsible for bombing Cambodia, as though it occurred in a vacuum.

The fact that the Ho Chi Minh trail ran through Cambodia, thereby violating Cambodian neutrality, is never, ever mentioned.

If the US bombed Cambodia into the Stone Age (hardly the case, but accuracy is irrelevant with such charges), the cause may be laid at the feet of the North Vietnamese regime, which violated international law by running its logistics corridor through a third country.

Or does the Left really believe that, if the North Vietnamese hadn't been running their supply lines through Cambodia (and Laos, for that matter), that Tricky Dick and Henry-the-K would've just expanded that bombing, in order to kill yellow people?

Posted by Lurking Observer at December 30, 2006 09:29 AM

Lucking Observer:
Take it up with Christopher Hitchins, who, as always, was likely drunk while writing that. I think the record shows that Laos went Communist, Cambodia went stupid genocidal Communist, and North Vietnam won anyway.

Rand,
What are the other positive outcomes of this adventure? Sorry if I dont trust noted fiction writer Amir Tehari (he does note the 30% unemployment although somehow as a good thing). Women have lost, Iran has won, and nobody will trust U. S. intelligence for a very long time.

Posted by Duncan Young at December 30, 2006 12:50 PM

"nobody will trust U. S. intelligence for a very long time."

Mostly because almost nobody has a clue as to how intelligence in the real world works - they get their impressions from bad spy movies and bad spy tv shows and bad spy novels. (Actually, I think the 'bad' prefacing each media is redundant...)

Posted by Anon Mouse at December 30, 2006 02:06 PM

Anonymous sheds a tear from one Jew Hater for the loss of another.

March a goosestep in honor of Saddam, Anonymous Jew Hater.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 30, 2006 03:55 PM

"but Simberg will say nothing for them."

Kim Jong Il keeps North Korea under the heel of his boot yet Anonymous Jew Hater refuses to start his own blog to support the North Korean people.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 30, 2006 03:59 PM

If all Saddam's hanging accomplished is ridding the world of a mass murdering tyrant, it would be worth it. Like the old joke about 500 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean being a "good start", Saddam's (or, as I saw it spelled yesterday, sodamned insane) execution is a good start. May it not be the last such ending to tyrants.

Posted by Larry J at December 30, 2006 05:00 PM

Larry,
As of yesterday, Saddam was a former mass murdering tyrant and had been for a couple of years. Executing him saved some cockcroachs from a good haranguing about the Great Satan and the lack of Cheetos in this lousy jail.

The price of deposing and hanging Saddam, of course being several hundred thousand dead, the best part of a trillion dollars, and a regional power vacuum into which that other member of the Axis of Evil is rapidly filling.

But so long as allowed you to get your rocks off, Larry, I guess that make it okay.

Posted by Duncan Young at December 30, 2006 07:00 PM

Simberg

If hussein had committed so many crimes, why wasn't he
tried for them?

Will you be complaining as vociferously when GWB
is tried only for minor war crimes?

Posted by anonymous at December 30, 2006 07:14 PM

Wasn't bombing Cambodia into the Stone Age a bit redundant?

But seriously folks...Jay Manifold once calculated the Saddam death toll - 2-4 million.

http://avoyagetoarcturus.bl0gsp0t.com/2002_11_01_archive.html#85682521#85682521

(Change the zeros in "bl0gsp0t" to o's. If it goes to top of page, scroll to "Risk Management, Terrorism, and Pollution")

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at December 30, 2006 08:15 PM

As of yesterday, Saddam was a former mass murdering tyrant and had been for a couple of years. Executing him saved some cockcroachs from a good haranguing about the Great Satan and the lack of Cheetos in this lousy jail.

Not to mention removing a heroic figure whose continuing respiration allowed some Ba'athists to maintain hope for a restoration.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 30, 2006 08:21 PM

Rand,
Let me remind you of the word "martyr". I hear in some parts of the world, death is the best career move someone angling for "heroic figurehood" can make.

Just ask JFK, RFK and Jerry Ford.

Posted by Duncan Young at December 30, 2006 09:20 PM

"Will you be complaining as vociferously when GWB
is tried only for minor war crimes?"

Proabally not considering we really don't care what military campaigns Napolean is developing at your asylum either. I am sure the other inmates will enjoy your trials. Perhaps you can bring charges against the President for supporting the human rights of Jews while you are at it.

Perhaps you should ask your doctor to up your voltage. The current setting just isn't cutting it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 30, 2006 09:29 PM

Will you be complaining as vociferously when GWB
is tried only for minor war crimes?

Why should he be? When I heard of these sorts of claims in the past, it involved (IMHO) ignoring a century's worth of legal precedent on war crimes. International law is pretty weak on what is considered war crimes, but that reflects that there's no morality at the nation-state level. Perhaps it should be different, but it's not. Nor do I see this changing in the next century or two.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at December 31, 2006 01:44 AM

Anyone else see this report?

Even the last minutes of Mr Hussein’s life seemed to reinforce that the old order was gone for good. One of the witnesses, Judge Munir Haddad, was quoted by CNN as saying that as the noose was being tightened around Mr Hussein’s neck, one of the hangmen shouted out “Long live Moqtada al-Sadr.”

Posted by Bill White at December 31, 2006 07:01 AM

Let me remind you of the word "martyr".

I'm well familiar with that word, Duncan, thanks.

You seem to live in some kind of world in which there are perfect choices, and that which is the best is obvious. In my reality, there are up sides and down sides to every action (in this case, keeping him alive or not). The question is which action has the most up, and the least down. It continues to be my estimation that his death is a net good thing, as is Austin Bay's as well. Only time will tell.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 31, 2006 08:32 AM

Simberg

25,000 american soldiers dead or wounded.

$500 Billion spent.

One small time dictator dead.

Funny standard for net benefit

Posted by anonymous at December 31, 2006 10:35 AM

Rand,
Iraq is being tore apart over a summary execution that took place in 661.

And what did Austin Bay do to you?

Posted by Duncan Young at December 31, 2006 10:41 AM

"25,000 american soldiers dead or wounded.

$500 Billion spent.

One small time dictator dead.

Funny standard for net benefit"

I see Anonymous Jew hater is as bad at logic as he is at ethics.

Still humpin' that strawman too I see.

Perhaps is funny to you because its your standard and not Rand's or that of any sane person on this board?

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 31, 2006 11:18 AM

Hmmm....

1945

800,000 American soldiers dead or wounded...

$2 trillion in today's dollars spent.

Three dictators dead.

61 years of troops in the defeated nation's country.

Hmmm.....

Your point?

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at December 31, 2006 11:23 AM

Dennis don't start posting truth and history, it just muddies up the waters of thought for some of the small thinkers here.

Posted by Steve at December 31, 2006 01:15 PM

Dennis,
You left off "Ended the war".

Oh, crap, that's right...

Posted by Duncan Young at December 31, 2006 02:34 PM

Happy New Years guys. Saddam is dead. Now I suggest a few people find a life of their own.

See you in 2007!

Posted by Leland at December 31, 2006 03:31 PM

Bill, you wrote:

Anyone else see this report?

The CNN version states that this is the claim of a single witness (and Hussein had repeated the name in a mocking tone). Another claims that Hussein was a "broken" man and that several people danced around the body after the execution. I'm sure that if the reporter had kept going, we'd probably obtain several more completely different versions of what happened.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at December 31, 2006 03:49 PM

Oh Christ, the Sunni nutballs near Latifiyah have begun shooting their Shia hostages and there's been two blasts in Al Shualaa. Twelve hours and he's already a fracking martyr.

Posted by Adrasteia at December 31, 2006 05:47 PM

Will you be complaining as vociferously when GWB is tried only for minor war crimes?

We've seen how poorly Europeans conduct war crimes trials. Bush would die of old age long before the procedings were finished. It seems some in the legal profession are more interested in procedure and process than justice. Of course, should the Europeans try to arrest and try Bush, we'd just declare war on them and level their decrepid societies once and for all with no Marshall Plan afterwards.

Posted by Larry J at December 31, 2006 09:31 PM

Adrasteia, what's surprising about that? Saddam's death provides a convenient time to kill someone. That's how certain groups work over there. Anytime news happens, they kill someone to get inserted. They understand pretty well how the media works.

Larry, why are you fantasizing about invading Europe? Assume that it were for some reason possible, what would be the point? For what it is worth, the European countries are some of the best allies the US has. Getting into a war over a "war crimes" trial of an ex-president is stupid. The US has plenty of negotiating power (particular of the economic and legal kind) to free an ex-president from such trouble. Further, it is foolish to use military power to bully peaceful countries.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at January 1, 2007 01:10 AM

I'm not fantasizing about invading Europe. We already have more than enough troops there to wipe out those piss ant European military forces. If any European egghead thinks that they'll try to arrest a US president (current or former) and nothing will happen, then they're even dumber than they appear.

Posted by Larry J at January 1, 2007 09:12 AM

From my understanding, we already invaded Europe and found it to be a quagmire with no exit strategy for getting our troops back home. We lost in Europe. I blame Truman for messing up Chamberlain's peace accord with the Germans.

Posted by Leland at January 1, 2007 03:56 PM

Leland

You are just bitter because FDR and Truman were
democrats who knew how to make war
and how to make peace.

FDR built up a real army, marshalled the nation,
raised taxes to pay for the war.

Truman ran the truman commission to root out
war-profiteers, managed De-nazification,
built a real democracy in Germany,
treated the germans with kindness and respect,
so as to harness them as NATO allies,
ran the Marshall Plan though congress,

Bush and Cheney? Screwballs and losers.

The issue is democrats know how government should
Govern.

Posted by anonymous at January 1, 2007 06:52 PM

"The issue is democrats know how government should Govern."

Yep LBJ made a quagmire of both Viet Nam and the War on Povetry and started the Quagmire of the War on Drugs.

Carter gave us the Quagmire of Stagflation and allowing the seed of Islamic extremism to take root in Iran. At least Carter sucessfully destroyed the myth of Keynsian economics which claims stagflation is impossible.

Yes, the Democrats really knew how to govern in 1945. Too bad they had forgotten by 1950. Took a Republican to get us out of Korea.

Objective people can see they never got it back.

I guess you cannot be so objective about the present can you Anonyomus Jew Hater?

You are still stuck in the 1940's, Goose Stepping your way to flat feet in your imaginary bunker safe from approaching reality as you imagine implementing your final solution for Israel......

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 1, 2007 07:07 PM

The interventionist Dems haven't figured out that the Dems arguments against interventionism in Bush's Iraq apply to the interventions that they favor.

Oops. If Hussein should have stayed in power, then so should Pinonchet.

Posted by Andy Freeman at January 1, 2007 08:37 PM

Saddam's gone. We should celebrate I guess. Too bad that December 2006 had the highest fatality figures in 2 years for our troops over there. That unfortunately dampens the celebration a bit doesn't it? Add another 20k severely wounded, look at the state of Iraq now, and there isn't much to be gleeful about.

What a bloody mess Bush has given us to deal with in 2007 and beyond. Actually not him so much as the the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz crowd; but Bush will be held responsible. Bloody, miserable, hopeless, mess.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at January 2, 2007 07:58 AM

Mike

If you want to talk about the 70's shouldn't you
discuss Richard Nixon, who presided over
Double Digit inflation, or Gerald Ford who
had as a contribution to economic policy
the WIN button.

I notice you leave Clinton off the list.
After all those budget surpluses and an
ability to keep America at peace, well, well, well.

Posted by anonymous at January 2, 2007 08:58 PM

anonymous:

Chamberlain was quite good at keeping Britain at peace, too. So was Stalin; he had a watertight peace treaty with Hitler.

Didn't work out too well, did it?

Slightly altered quote from a movie, that seems relevant:

"Listen. And understand. It's out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead."

Or maybe another one:

"Resistance is futile. Your life as it has been, is over. From this time forward, you will service us."

Sometimes movie writers get a big concept in a small space.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at January 3, 2007 02:28 AM

The problem with The GOP is they read far too much
science fiction and far too little science.

Quoting from Fiction, quoting from Science Fiction?
using that to make your arguments? I suppose what
you believe is that Captain Kirk will show up and
make peace in Iraq, next.

So what happened to your plan to Nuke Tehran?

Seriously feltcher, let's see it.

who launches, exactly what from where?
How many iranians are supposed to die?
Then, what? Do the iranians surrender to the mythical force?
Do the persians take their beating and go away?
Is it all flowers and candy after that? or is it faced
by a redoubled arab/persian/asian series of bomb efforts?

Come on Feltcher, let's hear your plan.

Posted by anonymous at January 3, 2007 07:48 PM

Theoretically, of course, a nuclear lay-down on Iran would actually not be that difficult.

Consider a single Ohio-class SSBN carries 24 Trident-II/D-5 nuclear missiles, with, say, 8 warheads apiece. That's 192 warheads.

For the purposes of this exercise, let's assume either 100% reliability, or that we launch two sub's worth of Tridents to cover for any failures.

If we assume 3 warheads per mid-level city (Tabriz), 5 warheads per major city (Tehran), and three warheads per nuclear facility (remembering that the D-5 has an accurate enough warhead to do counterforce strikes), I'd venture that you'd be talking about enough firepower from a single SSBN (or two, if you wanted to be sure) to incinerate very mid-level or major city in Iran (the 21 provincial capitals, plus Tehran and a few other non-provincial-capital urban centers) and still have enough left to hit every real or suspected nuclear site.

Indeed, such a laydown would devastate most of the population as well. This map http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_population_density_2004.jpg suggests that most of the Iranian population would be within the fallout path of such a nuclear strike (which would also wipe out most of the infrastructure necessary to sustain any kind of industrial-level standard of living). So, any Iranian bomb-making effort would probably be taking a back-seat to individual (never mind national) survival.

BTW, if you set the city-busters at optimal burst height, you even alleviate most of the fallout problem. Couple that with penetrators for the WMD-site nukes (so that the bomb goes off underground and the fallout is mostly localized), and you could wind up w/ a very limited down-wind collateral damage issue.

Is that what you were asking about, anonymous?

Posted by Lurking Observer at January 4, 2007 02:26 PM

Lurking Observer

certainly a reasonable nuclear strike plan.
I was hoping, Felcher christian had a plan,
he talks about nuking iran, i'd like to see his plan.

BTW, Under what theory of morality does
LO support incinerating 35 Million
people?

Posted by anonymous at January 4, 2007 06:01 PM

Perhaps if Iran decides to pop one off in a population center, he (LO) is unwilling to continue to take it up the ass Hermann Goering style like you like it. Perhaps at that point he would advocate letting slip the dogs of war and crying Havok in the style of Marcus Antonius

Perhaps the theory of morality that says don't play kicks with a mule or don't bring a putty knofe to a gun fight.

Does that jibe with your line of thinking LO?

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 5, 2007 08:33 PM

"Mike

If you want to talk about the 70's shouldn't you
discuss Richard Nixon, who presided over
Double Digit inflation, or Gerald Ford who
had as a contribution to economic policy
the WIN button.

I notice you leave Clinton off the list.
After all those budget surpluses and an
ability to keep America at peace, well, well, well."

Perhaps when you acknowledge the obvious fact that James'Malaise' Earl 'Stagflation'''Iranian Hostage Crisis' Carter is the greatest phuckwad in the last 150 years of the Republic I might entertain discussing the fecduciary policies of the Clinton Administration.

Until you prove the minimal intellectual and logical capacity to acknowledge that simple reality, I would merely be casting my pearls before the schwein I am afraid....

Posted by Mike Puckett at January 5, 2007 08:41 PM

Let's just say, Mike Puckett, that I was a realist when realism was the bad policy-choice among liberals.

See, when you believe in realism, then you believe in doing what's necessary to secure the national interest. That means not launching crusades on behalf of idealistic objectives. But it also means a willingness to cut deals with bad folks. You know, folks like Mobotu and Mubarak and Chun Doo Hwan, b/c we faced a larger enemy in the form of the Soviet Union.

That means that sometimes you get photographed shaking hands with horrible dictators. People like Saddam Hussein. And Josef Stalin. Not because you like these people, or support these people, but b/c, in the real world, there are often nastier, worse people out there. Like Khomeini. And Hitler.

Which also means that sometimes you conclude that the guy you recently supportED, for short-term, immediate reasons, you now have to confront and oppose, maybe even for similar short-term, immediate reasons. Maybe even go to war with those same people. Maybe even nuke 'em.

Because that is realism in action. That's what a realistic foreign policy is really all about. Killing people who need killing, as determined by the national interest.

Posted by Lurking Observer at January 6, 2007 09:15 PM

LO:

You obviously have some professional knowledge of the subject. I don't - but anyone knows that even the UK could obliterate Iran as a working country in an hour.

I would venture to suggest that if they aren't already on the target list, that Qom (which is also in Iran), Mecca and Medina would be useful additions.

Possibly also Riyadh, which is where most of the money to support terrorism is coming from.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at January 7, 2007 12:18 PM

anonymous:

"How many Iranians are supposed to die?"

Ideally, all of them. As an object lesson, if nothing else.

I think that few people doubt what will happen if and when a nuke goes off in the USA. Where I differ from some is that I would prefer that it happen without a million Americans (or Brits, the next most likely target) having to die first.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at January 8, 2007 06:51 AM

Post a comment