Saddam to Swing

[Undertoad]

The Times' John Burns:

“As he left the detention area, he thanked the guards and medics for the treatment he had received,” said Lt. Col. Keir-Kevin Curry, spokesman for the task force. Mr. Hussein was then driven to a waiting Black Hawk helicopter for a 10-minute flight to the old Istikhbarat prison in northern Baghdad, where a party of Iraqi officials awaited him at the gallows. “During this brief period of transfer, Saddam Hussein appeared more serious,” the task force said.

Wretchard points out:

It was ironical that Hussein, in his last hour, would bid his Americans a sincere goodbye before steeling himself to face the men baying for his blood and who could hardly contain their desire to kill him.

[DanaC]

The ones that aren't like that start wars promiscuously, oppress anyone they take a whim to, and make just about all the trouble in the world not caused by large hurricanes and quakes.

Take a look at America's record on conflict. Promiscuity is not just the preserve of undemocratic countries.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Look which side we've fought on in every single conflict for the past hundred years, DanaC, and for a large portion of the hundred years before that: the side we Americans weigh in on is the side of the greater freedom against the lesser freedom. You have not, I believe, ever understood this.

Wars come from the undemocracies. History shows this. People who read history see this.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Wars come from the undemocracies. History shows this. People who read history see this.

What?

That is because democracies have been around for the past 250 years and that is it. Even then, that statement is false.

Romans were a democracy and the tried to conquer the world.

America is a democracy and start shit with every dictator they don't like.

The most influential democracies in human history have started numerous wars, I think your logic is a bit off.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

What?

That is because democracies have been around for the past 250 years and that is it. Even then, that statement is false.

And during that 250 years, it's been the undemocracies starting the fights.

Romans were a democracy and the[y] tried to conquer the world.

The Empire began as the Roman Republic fell away. Rome's fighting with the Etruscans is all pretty murky, as records of that era were almost totally lost. No telling who was more of a republic, a democracy, or a whatever, not for sure.

America is a democracy and start shit with every dictator they don't like.

Oh those poor, abused dictators! How sad -- that it's necessary to lift their boots from humanity's collective neck!

The most influential democracies in human history have started numerous wars, I think your logic is a bit off.

I can't think of a single example of this in the last hundred years, and really, in the US case, only fights with Indian tribes (Indian being what Native Americans call other tribes, a usage that may as well be respected) in the century previous. One may cite the Confederate Constitution during 1861-65, I suppose -- but just how completely democratic was it? Slaveholding's still a big smirch.

I understand that history ALWAYS has its "yes, buts."

In the other pan of the balance, we have the not very democratic Serbians capping the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary in 1914, we have the not very democratic Japan invading China in 1935 et sequelae, and the never to be mistaken for democratic Falangists taking Spain in 1936 and Nazi Germany's, and Italy's, declaration of war of December 11, 1941.

Examples so large and so generally distributed, pierce, ought really to be given their due.

[DanaC]

Urbane. Just because your interpretation of history does not match my interpretation of history, please don't make assumptions about what I read. Not everybody who reads history sees what you see.

Incidentally, I went looking at a site that lists every American conflict and found this little gem:

U.S.-Philippine War
1899-1902
Colonial War, War of Imperialism

I'd be interested in your take on this.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Just because your interpretation of history does not match my interpretation of history, please don't make assumptions about what I read. Not everybody who reads history sees what you see.

Thats the truest statement EVER! We all interpret information in a different way and most times to suit our own needs. No matter what side of this, or most any argument you are on, there is information that can be interpreted so that you see ehat you want to see. Whether or not their were valid reasons for getting involved in this war, they were not what we were told and that is wrong. Even if there was a "bigger picture" that we as citizens were not aware of.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by DanaC

U.S.-Philippine War
1899-1902
Colonial War, War of Imperialism

This is actually the biggest reason why many conservatives defend the Iraqi war. The US "put down" the Philippine resistance by force and they think they can do that to the Iraqis.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Urbane. Just because your interpretation of history does not match my interpretation of history, please don't make assumptions about what I read. Not everybody who reads history sees what you see.

Incidentally, I went looking at a site that lists every American conflict and found this little gem:

U.S.-Philippine War
1899-1902
Colonial War, War of Imperialism

I'd be interested in your take on this.

And were we or were we not fighting the Empire of Spain in 1898-99? And what was their manner of governance? Avoid selective views if at all possible, DanaC, or you won't have the entire picture.

You think one halfhearted and latecomer example is going to disprove my basic thesis? Think again. Also take note of when the Philippines became an independent nation, and how it was done.

We gave the place back.

Ours is a singularly unimperialistic habit.

[Ibby]

ANY history teacher will tell you that the US was extremely imperialistic way back when. That's the actual name of the unit for that era. US Imperialism.

We're returning to our habit.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Ibram

ANY history teacher will tell you that the US was extremely imperialistic way back when. That's the actual name of the unit for that era. US Imperialism.

We're returning to our habit.

We can't return to a habit we never had, Ibram. Look over the times before and after what was really a very brief period, very late in the era of modern empire building, pursued halfheartedly only, and soon abandoned. The Philippines aside, the largest land area involved was the Canal Zone -- and these were both temporary things. No, I think I could give a well supported argument against this extremely-imperialist theory, and make it persuasively too.

You could do the same, with some research with this in mind -- a sort of "see if I can prove or at least argue this" that would be somewhat different, I think, from what you're reading in high school texts these days. You see, there's never room to fit all the details in unless you're writing a shelf-full like Will and Ariel Durant. And even they could only fit in so much -- they had to prioritize, and they have a lot more detail on European history.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

We can't return to a habit we never had, Ibram. Look over the times before and after...

Heh. It is indeed a habit we never had if you look only at the times we didn't do it.

[DanaC]

In the other pan of the balance, we have the not very democratic Serbians capping the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary in 1914

So, looking at Serbia at that time, and looking at Austria-Hungary, you have come to the conclusion that the Serbians were undemocratic and the Austro-Hungarians were?

[xoxoxoBruce]

We were Imperialists when it was fashionable, but in doing it because it was fashionable, we never got good at it.

Britain, France Spain, Portugal, Germany even the Scandinavian countries did it better. They all moved in and completely ingrained their character into the local mores and customs.
The US, on the other hand, treated these "possessions" like red headed step children. We didn't really make, or even accept, them as family.

Some American companies and individuals certainly exploited the natives, but in most cases, our interests were primarily Navel support, which made some natives pretty wealthy.

We meddled in their politics to the extent of protecting our interests, by controlling the national leaders and not be asked to leave. We didn't really try to sway the general public toward are system of democracy or teach them much of anything.
The local politics was left to it's own devices, as long as they weren't revolting against the national leaders.

Because of this failure in assimilate their society, when we left, they viewed us not like distant kin but more like former employers.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by DanaC

So, looking at Serbia at that time, and looking at Austria-Hungary, you have come to the conclusion that the Serbians were undemocratic and the Austro-Hungarians were?

No. No one mistakes Austria-Hungary for a democracy.