Good News…

|

…for everybody except Saddam: Uday and Qusay Hussein are confirmed dead.

NEXT: The Empty Vault

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Good riddance.

    Does anyone else inclined to believe it was a Pablo Escobar “gunfight?”

  2. Trying to avoid a cheap shot, somehow, but it is just so undeniably disengenuous and inconsistent that this would be called good news on this site. After fighting to discredit everything that lead up to this, after working for a magazine that did everything within its ability to stop this moment from happening, you don’t get to hail this as good news. If the anti-war movement had had its way, we would never be here and these two would still be carrying on in the style to which they were accustomed. You can’t have it both ways.

  3. Eric, aren’t dead tyrants always good news?

  4. Eric, not very fair to Reason. Not all the editors were anti-war, only a couple obvious ones. The others appeared to be agnostic.

    Knee jerk anti-war is part of libertarian dogma, like it or not. If you want “think outside the box” on FP you are better off somewhere else in the blogsphere.

  5. theres a big difference between being opposed to GOING to war, and being in favor of WINNING a war that we are already involved in. Reason may not have supported going to war, but they have always expressed a desire to win the war once we were involved.

  6. Too right Eric.

    Instead of “death to tyrants” we [L]ibertarians ought to flash ’em the Vulcan salute, and a hearty “Live Long, and Prosper” After all, Uday was just exercising his God-given right to rape the bejeezus out of men wimmin & children, feed people into shredders, gas ethnic minorities, attempt to assassinate ex-U.S. presidents, actually assassinate under-performing soccer players, and pack mass graves with thousands of political opponents, religious minorities and so forth. Who are we to say what’s right, and what’s wrong? It’s just not ideologically pure…

  7. And the antiwar editors talked about how US policy, including sanctions, helped keep the Husseins in power. But acknowledging that their position exists would mean the hawks would have to be a lot less smug. So never mind.

  8. it’s the Irish in ol’ Timmay boy, raise a glass to the intemperate neutral fuck

  9. Eric:

    I don’t buy it. Hawks don’t have a monopoly on feeling good when a couple of bloodthirsty bastards are wiped off the face of the planet. It’s perfectly consistent to have believed that we shouldn’t have gone in there and stirred the pot in the first place, but that since we have, we might as well clean house so the Iraqis have the best shot at a fresh start (and so that we can get out of there asap).

  10. I’m inclined to agree with Eric Dreamer, but it’s still good news.

  11. Sic semper tyrannis.

    Plus, plenty of libertarians recognize that the state has a legitimate role in defending its citizens. I for one regard the war on terror as a legitimate exercise in self-defense by America, and the campaign in Iraq as an essential element of that war. You can’t drain a swamp without digging a few ditches, and Iraq was the best place by far to start digging in the mideast.

    Anyone who thinks that the Iraqi operation isn’t going extremely well lacks any sense of historical perspective. My only complaint with the war on Iraq is that it went on about 12 years too long.

  12. To agree with Max Dreamer, one can reasonably say “Every time we intervene in another part of the world we only create more problems in the long-run” (e.g. we helped both the Taliban and Hussein) and still say “But, as long as we’re doing it, might as well rejoice that the old villains are gone. Let’s just pray we don’t raise up any new thugs to take their place.”

    So, I’m glad they’re gone, I just hope we don’t inadvertently install somebody else who eventually turns out to be horrific as well in the long-run.

  13. Eric is way off base.

    Those at Reason who opposed this war, did so based on what they thought were proper grounds for committing US troops. I disagree with them, but I recognize that it has nothing to do with thinking the Husseins were good or undeserving of horrible deaths.

    According to your theory, Eric, who gets to call it bad news when a US soldier is killed in Iraq? Those who supported the war? Those who opposed it? It’s so confusing!!!

    If both, then why can’t they both be happy when vicious mass-murderers die there?

  14. Eric,

    Was Charles Lindburgh allowed to feel good on VJ Day?

  15. It’s been awhile since the chickenhawks have had anything to sack dance over. That they mistake killing a couple of degenerate princes for freeing the world from tyranny is not surprising.

  16. Interesting question JOe. How about yes, but not on VE day?

    Max Power:
    Its pretty shallow to hope we get out of there ASAP. I think we need to make good on our promise to build a functioning democracy there, however long it takes, for the Iraqis sake and for our sake. This kind of comment shows just what a conflicted position being anti-war puts you in. “I said that the war would lead to more terrorism, but now that we won the war I want us out of there as fast as possible, which of course will immediately lead to the country becoming a hotbed of terrorism, but, but, but . . .”

    Everybody claims to want mass-murdering tyrants dead, probably even Maureen Dowd, but in order to have any moral force or consitency behind that position you need to also support policies that will lead to such deaths, or at least not actively oppose them.

  17. everyone except lefty is happy about this. afterall this is just another point for chimpy.

  18. Thanks for proving my point Lefty. Do you exist merely to further parody and marginalize liberals? Cause your sure doing a good job.

  19. What about the U.S. casualty example, though? The casualties are a direct outgrowth of the war policy. So do supporters of the war have a right to claim to be saddened by American deaths in Iraq? If the antiwar movement had had its way, these soldiers would have died in bed fifty years from now. Every action in this world has both positive and negative consequences, so it’s only fair that people on BOTH sides take responsibility for the consequences of their positions. NOBODY can have it both ways.

  20. Well, with the sons dead, now whom are we going to ask to find out where the WMD are? 😉

  21. It’s funny, I was going to put in an end note: “See comments section for inevitable Rumpelstiltskin rant by Kommissar Deamer, our unpaid inquisitor of political heresies.”

    For what it’s worth, the administration pursued its ambitions in Iraq without any compromise with or condescension to anybody who opposed the attack. If there had been some big change in American policy as a result of the opposition to the war, I might understand this post-game obsession with who was for it or against it. But in fact the antiwar crowd was completely defeated, and had absolutely no impact on anything. The pro-war crowd was absolutely victorious and has been the sole determiner of the situation we are in now.

    How well the situation is going is open to discussion, and in fact I suspect the occupation is going fairly well so far. It doesn’t change my initial view that the invasion of Iraq was not a good idea, that Iraq did not pose a threat to American security (a view which, let’s be fair, has only grown more credible in the last few months), and that the repercussions of our experience in Iraq will be far-reaching and mostly negative for the United States. Only in a mind with a certain Leninist cast could believing the President committed America to an ill-advised adventure mean that you want that adventure to fail, especially considering how costly that failure would be for everybody concerned. Nor do I see why shouldn’t see some good in having the world free of Saddam’s dissolute sons (though the good that comes out of these deaths is solely for the Iraqis; it makes not a damn bit of difference for me or any other American).

    Because he has no valid arguments, Mr. Deamer pettifogs about objective support for dictators and other fanciful notions. He’s free to do so, and, as long as I continue to suffer fools easily, he’s free to do so in Reason’s comments section. Though I find this sort of party-line thinking boring, I understand his need to carry water for the Bush Administration; he’s certainly a perfectly adequate waterboy.

  22. >> If the antiwar movement had had its way, these soldiers would have died in bed fifty years from now.

    Or maybe they would have been nuked while on leave in Cleveland. Personally I am saddened by even the deaths of Saddam’s sons, how twisted a father they had to end up so inhuman! Hopefully this tragedy is nearly ended.

    I agree with the rest of your post.

  23. Mr. Dreamer dares be the contrarian here. For that he is accussed of mouthing the party line.

  24. believe it or not but some Americans enjoy seing others free. non-nationalistist ones for sure.

  25. Well, the US casualty thing raises problems for the anti-war side as well in that Alterman, many posters on this site, and many others, practically celebrated every American bodybag as a chance to show that the war was/is becoming a quagmire more than they displayed any genuine sympathy for the loss. On top of that you’ve got the “million Mogadishus” guy speaking at Columbia, Chris Hedges’ graduation speech (for which he was booed) etc. I’m sure that there are many principled doves who honestly do wish to keep our soldiers out of harm’s way but there is a significant chunk of the anti-war movement for whom that’s not the case.

  26. Eric:
    “Its pretty shallow to hope we get out of there ASAP. I think we need to make good on our promise to build a functioning democracy there, however long it takes, for the Iraqis sake and for our sake.”

    Did I say we should get out of there before a functioning democracy gets built? Now that we’re in there, I agree that we need to set things straight before we leave. And that should happen as soon as possible. With these two fuckers dead, that day just got a little closer.

  27. The new refrain from leftists is “Bush lied about the reason for attacking Iraq. He claimed that Iraq tried to purchase Uranium from Africa, and that wasn’t true.” Therefore… only they don’t proceed with the “therefore” because their unspoken therefore is “therefore we shouldn’t have attacked Iraq; we should have pursued other approaches and left Saddam in power.”

    [Snip endless, and apparently cribbed from another site, rant, about which there are some comments below-Tim]

  28. Mr. Dreamer dares be the contrarian here. For that he is accussed of mouthing the party line.

    “The” contrarian? These comment threads are filled with contrarians, some of whom have a party line to defend and some of whom are more independent. For whatever it’s worth, I prefer both groups to the contingent whose idea of a useful comment is Show us her tits! Though a couple of the more robotic ideologues sometimes seem worse.

  29. “For what it’s worth, the administration pursued its ambitions in Iraq without any compromise with or condescension to anybody who opposed the attack. If there had been some big change in American policy as a result of the opposition to the war, I might understand this post-game obsession with who was for it or against it. But in fact the antiwar crowd was completely defeated, and had absolutely no impact on anything. The pro-war crowd was absolutely victorious and has been the sole determiner of the situation we are in now.”

    I’ll mention to them that you think there should be a plesbicite before every war from now on, seeing as how I’m an apartchik and all. It might be a good idea, then you could see in stark terms how irrelevant your ideas are to the greater body politic.

    It takes a mind of a certain fevered cast to believe that ideas espoused by everyone from David Remnick to Kurt Andersen to Christopher Hitchens to Dennis Miller to Tom Friedman are the result of nothing more than Soviet like adherence to dogma. Or, perhaps it simply takes the lack of any argument, for which petty insults are inevitably substitued. May you never leave your hermetically sealed world Tim.

  30. “It takes a mind of a certain fevered cast to believe that ideas espoused by everyone from David Remnick to Kurt Andersen to Christopher Hitchens to Dennis Miller to Tom Friedman are the result of nothing more than Soviet like adherence to dogma.”

    Tim didn’t compare all hawks to Soviet-style dogmatists, Eric. He compared you to one. This should be obvious to anyone not living in a hermetically sealed world.

  31. It’s simple-minded liberals (and some conservatives) who think they know everything that’s the problem.

  32. O. Prime:

    Thanks for suggesting a great new venue for online publishing. I’ve got several book manuscripts as Wordpad files. Let’s see…

    Click “Select All” and “Copy,” left-click “Comments” box, and right-click “Paste.”

    Voila! An e-book is born!

  33. Joyla,

    You are right of course. It really galls me to hear an on-air pundit complain about their ideological foes complaining about which they know nothing. Ironic even.

    🙂

    Steve

  34. jesus, o. prime, if i wanted to read a fucking novel i’d do it in the hammock out back by my pool, not in the comments section of the hit-and-run blog. if you’re wondering why no one will respond to your superpost, it’s because no one will read your superpost.

  35. Uh, prime ‘ol buddy, I believe a link to Den Beste’s essay would be appropriate here.

  36. T. Hartin’s explanation for the war fits mine. I was fine with the attack on the Taliban/al Qaeda-controlled Afghanistan, as legitimate self-defense. To the extent that Iraq was aiding and/or abetting al Qaeda, or anyome else in the larger “terrorist network” aQ was connected with, the current war could be seen as more of the same. WMD needn’t even enter into it.

    Now, if the Saddam-al Qaeda connection proves out to be flimsy, W’s got some `splaining to do.

    Kevin

  37. That wass surely THE LONGEST “COMMENT” on any blog, ever.

  38. One general said that he had hoped the two would have been captured alive, and then paraded through the streets in shackles. This would’ve supposedly given a big psychological boost to the Iraqi people and the coalition.

    Afterwards, the two would’ve been thrown in prison, the general said, where they could’ve been “subjected to harsh treatment.”

    But where would the violated Iraqi girls find someone to daily rape those two — as they did them? Furthermore, American prisons don’t have neither plastic shredders nor chain saws, do they?

  39. Hey, I liked O Prime’s post. It squared with what I’d thought before the war, ie that the WMD argument was bullshit and the real reason was to get a toehold. It was a little odd to see something like that in the comments section though.

  40. O. Prime got the issue basically correct, I think. But this was hardly the place for such a lengthy post.

  41. Thoreau,

    Perhaps they can ask David Kay. Brokaw did and now different winds have been starting to kick. Unless, of course, only the wet spot would satisfy you, in which case…flour?

    As for the silly Saddam/AlQaeda link:

    Would Al Qaeda exist if it weren’t for Saddam Hussein?

    Or, if you can only digest smaller pieces:

    Why was Al Qaeda created?

    Why was the U.S. military in the Holy Land?

    Who did those that currently rule the Holy Land choose as protectors over UBL and his muhajideen?

    Who threatened those leaders of the Holy Land so that they would need protectors?

  42. I don’t see how this was good news for Uday or Qusay either.

  43. Eric Dreamer, O. Prime and the other anon neocon freeper nuts who post here quite simply suffer from mental illness. Please see the following which includes SCIENTIFIC evidence:

    http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

    Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

    Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

    Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

    Fear and aggression

    Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity

    Uncertainty avoidance

    Need for cognitive closure

    Terror management

    …read the rest.

  44. “Everybody claims to want mass-murdering tyrants dead, probably even Maureen Dowd, but in order to have any moral force or consitency behind that position you need to also support policies that will lead to such deaths, or at least not actively oppose them.”

    Yes, but one does not have to support every scheme to lead to such deaths. I assume you’re not on good terms with Fidel Castro; would you support nuking Havana?

    I would have been in favor of backing up the uprisings of 1991. I would have been in favor of sending a hit team into Baghdad any time over the past 8 or so years. I would have supported the formenting of local rebellions. And, if we could not bring about the overthrow of the Saddam regime after a few years of making a serious effort, I may well have supported an invasion, as there may have been a threat to America from Iraqi weopons in a few years. But I did not support this policy, at this time, for reasons that are being proved right.

    Your contention that there are only two positions on this war – full throated enthusiasm and “Kumbaya” – is either shallow or dishonest.

  45. either way: this is good news. finding WMDs would be excellent, too. getting OBL would be great (non related (maybe) to this war), watching SH shoot himself to avoid capture would be just fine, too.

    still, great successes that give the pro-war side even more ammo to tell me and others “i told you so”, don’t support any of the reasons we were given for war. however, wanting the US to be victorious and successful isn’t reserved for the hawks. And the hawks should realize that the non-hawks aren’t all noam chomsky (overrated as a linguist, too, IMHO — prefer Grice et al) peat moss eating liberals.

    (however, could someone please explain whenever the WMD or aQ arguments get shot down, the hawks immediately bring up chainsaws, paper shredders, acid pools and the like? those prove that which we all know — these assholes were the perfect definition of pure evil, a la hitler and stalin. however those confirmations sure don’t address the shortocmings in the evidence given for war)

    have a wonderful day all!
    drf

  46. O. Prime basically just pasted this:

    http://tinyurl.com/hrbf

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.