I'm hoping that comment was just some bitter Bush-hatred leaking out and not an honest opinion on international law

My opinion on international law is worth nothing, since I know, basically, nothing about it. But it's not just bile. I think that this action was as wrong (I was going to say illegal, but I just said that I have no basis for that) as the bombing of Cambodia. I hope that somehow we can show the US populace that the intentions of this action were, at least, self-serving, beyond the weak ``preemption'' argument.

In reply to:

---

I hate it when anyone dies, including the probably thousands (my bogus estimate) of Iraqis, military and civilian, that died at the US's hands, as well as the US soldiers and international journalists that died. Yes, yes. I know that Saddam was likely to kill that many people on his own, and I'm glad that he's gone.

---

You're getting worked up over nothing. Everything is going to be fine. So just relax, okay? You're really overreacting.

In reply to:

---

But this whole dog and pony show about humanitarian aid is just a smokescreen. If that's the reason that we were going in there, then that should and would have been the first words out of our administration's mouth. But it was not. It all centered around how Iraq was somehow complicit in the deaths of thousands of people in New York and Washington several years ago, despite the fact that those attacks were demonstrably committed by Saudis, who we support, and supported by Afghanistan, or that they might somehow be complicit in some crime in the future.

---

Not really.

In reply to:

---

Again, I'm very happy for the Iraqis who are happy. But I've seen any number of reports of Iraqi civilians who are not happy. It may be that all of these people are friends and family of killed civilians, but even that seems unlikely.

---

You are completely wrong.

In reply to:

---

Also, the reports of Iraqis in Dearborn who are overjoyed is not surprising. Those people are no longer in Iraq for a reason. They are likely the ones who were oppressed under Saddam. Of course they're glad he's gone. They have a personal interest in it that overshadows any potential international ramifications. So that's certainly a biased sample.

---

Why do you keep saying these things? I can tell when there's trouble looming, and I really don't sense that right now. We're in control of this situation, and we know what we're doing. So stop being so pessimistic.

In reply to:

---

Again, I'm glad for the Iraqis. I'm glad that Saddam is, likely, gone. But I'm scared for us. I'm saddened for those that lost loved ones, whether they be Iraqi, US, or anything else. And this is not a wound that will close cleanly. It will leave a scar so big that it may have been better to leave the cancer. And it's all due to an incompetent doctor who wouldn't listen to the rest of the medical community.

---

Look, you've been proven wrong, so stop talking. You've had your say already.

In reply to:

---

I hope that I'm wrong. I hope that this isn't the start of more selective ``regime change'' in the Middle East. We'll have to wait and see. But I don't think that we should assume that the ends justify the means or the intent. The ends now exist, and I'm glad of them in and of themselves, but that doesn't excuse the rest.

---

You're wrong.

Source.

When you got to your second sentence I knew what source you were citing

In addition, it sets a very bad precedent in favor of ``preemptive'' (read ``unprovoked'') invasions.

At the risk of replying to my own post ... it continues:

Rumsfeld Accuses Syria of Aiding Saddam

(I know; it says nothing about invasions, but it does lay the groundwork in another ``sources we're not going to tell you about'' kind of way.)

This picture is awesome.
Saddam was an [censored].
The US is great.
The US sucks.

I truely believe that the Iraqi people will see us as liberators and will build a successful democracy

Well, I certainly hope so. But I can't help thinking that winning the war was always going to be the easy bit of Operation Iraqi Freedom, compared to the challenge of building a stable country in the place of Saddamite Iraq. And I'm not saying war is particularly easy: I'm sure US and UK forces conducted themselves with skill and heroism all the way. War is hard. But stabilising occupied countries is really, really hard; the British Empire screwed it up literally all over the map, despite having plenty of practice.

(despite France's official stance that the Middle-East is not sofisticated enough for one yet).

Is that actually the way they word it? Or have they just had more experience of the immense difficulty of decolonisation, especially Middle-East decolonisation, than the US?

After all, nobody really liked the Taliban. But the decolonisation of Afghanistan has yet to produce a government with influence reaching much beyond the suburbs of Kabul. If the Kurds, and, say, the Marsh Arabs rise against Baghdad once the garrisoning forces pull out, then sure things will be a different kind of bad in Iraq than they were under Saddam, but they'll still in fact be pretty bad.

Peter

So where do I go with: I went down to St.James's Infirmary?

Either St. James's or St. James' would be correct.

Again, we're getting into personal preference, but the rule of thumb is that you use "'s" on every name ending in an "s" unless the person referenced is ancient (historically, not just a nonagenarian) or mythological: "Jesus' tears", "Moses' tablets", "Zeus' lightning bolts", but "Mrs. Jones's house down the street".

So it depends on, I guess, exactly which St. James it is (I assume that there must be more than one). You might also want to find out if it's his hospital or if it's just named after him. That is, whether a possessive should be used at all ("St. Mark's Hospital" vs. "St. Mark Hospital").

The real answer would be to call the hospital and find what they prefer, as it is the name of an established organization, and they might prefer "St. Jamess'sss", for all you know.

I remember read "James and the Giant Peach" when I was little, and it was the first time I ran across this. I can't quite remember which one Dahl used. Anyone have a copy? I think it's in the first few pages.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm

exactly what i was trying to tell friends of mine earlier. a few thousand (if it was that many) people celebrating the toppling of a statue doesn't really reflect the 8 million or so that live in Baghdad does it?

I've read many other reports from indy media guys who have photos of how the food distributions were media events which were oddly staged. Strange stuff man.

Then you come across Op-Ed pieces like this one. [nytimes reg required]

it's so impossible to get a clear picture of what's really going on. It's all just too huge to break down into black and white.

[nytimes reg required]

Odd, I had no trouble viewing it.

My only guess is that, while the war is still going on, going and finding thousands of anti-Saddam Iraqis would not be the easiest or smartest thing in the world to do. I believe that many of these people are against Saddam, but how do you tell who's sincere about it when there's still citizens fighting our troops? That would be pretty dangerous just to tear down a lousy statue.

Does the scene at the right look like the Fall of the Berlin Wall?

For one, why is that guy capitalizing "Fall of the Berlin Wall" like he's refering to a book or something? Also, the Berlin Wall was a little bigger.


I think it's dangerous to take the word of both sensationalist news sources and cynical underground skeptics. I like your second source better.

I believe that many of these people are against Saddam, but how do you tell who's sincere about it when there's still citizens fighting our troops?

The Iraqi people have been taught to dissemble for the past... what, twenty years now, simply as a basic survival mechanism. That's not going to go away overnight. It's not difficult to believe that they really want Saddam out, and are happy to see him go, but can you trust their outward expression of "yay America" anymore than you can trust their outward expressions of "yay Saddam"?

Um, I think you're agreeing with me.

Uh... I think I am too.*


*This is a limited time offer, while supplies last. Offer open only to residents of the United States and Canada as applicable by law. Offer not valid in Quebec. I reserve the right to change my mind at anytime.

Hehe, okay, I wasn't sure. I thought you were arguing with me