How wonderful that Saddam revealed himself to be the cowardly, dirty little thug that he was by hiding out in a rat-hole. One might think that with his rhetoric or bin Laden’s that they might actually fight to their deaths leading their armies. Or, is that the "western way of war" to borrow a phrase from Victor Davis Hanson? What a great victory for George Bush and the American military - the best in the world! What a great day for freedom and the triumph of human rights! I hope those Europeans take note.

Tony Williams

What will be interesting is to see how long it takes before Republicans start to say that Hussein’s capture legitimizes the war. It’ll happen. I GUARANTEE it.

Actually, what will legitimize the war are two things.

The consistent violation of a peace treaty after the end of the first Gulf War. The UN & Clinton didn’t seem
to mind that all that much. Let’s pass another resolution they argued. Sounds a bit like when Hitler marched into the Sudentenland or Czechoslovakia in violation of the Versailles Treaty. Chamberlain argued, after all, isn’t Hitler just in re-arming? It took the
moral courage of a Churchill to argue against that stance, just as Bush is an example of moral fortitude in pursuing the good - that’s something the folks at the relativist NY Times just can’t understand. The world is "complex" to them.

I tend to think that murderous regimes like the Taliban & Iraq are objectively bad because they murder hundreds of thousands, violate women, and deny fundamental rights. Not to mention, but they support or practice terrorism as well. I think those are pretty good reasons for a regime change. That of course assumes that one thinks these things are wrong.

Tony Williams

No relation to Tony, but I do agree. These murderous regimes are part and parcel of what is evil in this world. Or do the liberals hate this because in their morally relativistic world, Saddam had a bad childhood that excuses him from crimes against humanity?

Get real. What really made me ill this morning (and right in the middle of eggs and sausage for breakfast) was Howard Dean stating what a wonderful thing this was - the man who didn’t support this operation in the first place! Someone go dig out those sound bites and play them for him. Let the hypocrisy begin (France, Germany, Russia)!!

I think that the answer for the liberal and European and distinctly modern view expressed in the Enlightenment is found in the writings of CS Lewis. The best way for the Devil to work his magic in this world is not by pressing certain sins but by getting humans to deny the existence of evil itself. Clearly we’ve seen the results of that falsehood in the 20th century when man disregarded God and made himself a God. After all, Europe said that man was too enlightened and educated for another holocaust to occur and it did in their own backyard in the Balkans. The same with Saddam and their unwillingness to confront evil because of their fundamental disbelief in evil. Look at the European constitution that they were debating this week. I would love to see the BLOG mention that debate with the French leading the secularists to deny Muslim religious rights.

Tony Williams

And not a single mention of WMD from either one of you... how CONVEEEENIENT.

And to address Jennifer’s comment, because Dean didn’t support an illegal war, he can’t express his appreciation for the hard work of the men and women of the US Armed Forces for their efforts in capturing Saddam??? Get your head out of you @ss, would ya?

Well, Starbuck, or whatever your name is. I will concede that the US army has not found the WMD yet, but you must concede that that was not the only reason for going to war. I also note that you had no response to the continued violations of the UN resolutions for over a decade while it did nothing. You also don’t mention that Saddam Hussein used poison gas against his own people. How convenient! I guess the world community should just shrug its shoulders and look the other way. Let me guess, you don’t "like" Saddam Hussein, you just didn’t think anyone should do anything about it. I guess you like murderous regimes. I hope Dean wins the Democratic nomination and runs against George Bush so that he can try to make that argument to the American people. Four more years, baby!

Tony Williams

you must concede that that was not the only reason for going to war

Sure it was. Until Bush realized that the whole WMD argument wouldn’t do the trick and changed tactics mid-stream. Have you been living in a cave, Tony?

Oh, by the way, you’d best start rehearsing "President Dean." For some of you Republican punks, its going to take the better part of a year to get it down.

Oh, by the way, you seem awfully eager to badger me for not using a pseudonym. So why the hesitation to post your real email address, Tony... if that’s even your real name?

Actually, I must plead with you to try to keep it civilized despite the tenor of internet conversations. You called people punks and asses. Not exactly uplifting conversation. By the way, though I vote Republican, I am not a card-carrying member. I am a conservative rooted in natural law and American and Western founding principles. If that makes me a Republican, so be it.

As for his reasons for going to war, the WMD was simply not the only reason. You never did address my other points. Please stop name calling and answer the question as to the nature of Saddam’s regime and what you would have done about it without going to war.

As for "President Dean," we shall see. I just honestly don’t think he’s electable. Good luck however. The great thing about republican self-government is that the people get the kind of leader that they want. I’m sure glad that we (and now maybe one other country) have that right.

Tony Williams

I’ll answer it as soon as you acknowledge that the war was illegal, you ASS!

Tony Williams wrote:

"I also note that you had no response to the continued violations of the UN resolutions for over a decade while it did nothing. You also don’t mention that Saddam Hussein used poison gas against his own people. How convenient! I guess the world community should just shrug its shoulders and look the other way."

Were the United States interested in defending the human rights of oppressed peoples, we’d have a military presence in no fewer than 25 different countries right now. What makes the "Iraqi human rights" argument disgusting in my eyes is that it only came about after President Bush’s claims about WMDs began to falter. Even more distasteful are those in the pro-war mob who try to claim that because one is against an unjust war, that person must be "Anti-American" or "Pro-Saddam."

I didn’t know that I was in a "pro-war
mob" but interesting choice of words.

1. I concede that there are many regimes around the world and many that I would like to see removed from power. However, as Lincoln noted and practiced, policies must be dictated by the virtue of prudence. Invading China for a regime change and to save human rights at the cost of nuclear war and millions dead is not exactly a prudent decision. There are many options available as were tried for twelve years against the man now in custody. 2. Other nations were not violating the terms of a treaty that ended a war. Bush put forth many reasons to invade Iraq, not just WMD. 3. I will concede that a truly exercised conscience against a war is certainly worthy of great respect and is not un-patriotic, but it seems to me that the opponents of war seemed to be totally content with a murderous thug in power and UN resolutions being violated without action. This leads me to 4. I have not seen any postings on what the opponents of war would like to have seen done here that would have achieved the objectives of getting a genocidal maniac out of power, enforcing the UN resolutions, and protecting human rights in Iraq. I would love to hear it. Respectfully and without name calling and other ad hominem attacks - Tony Williams

Tony Williams wrote:

"as Lincoln noted and practiced, policies must be dictated by the virtue of prudence. Invading China for a regime change and to save human rights at the cost of nuclear war and millions dead is not exactly a prudent decision"

What is the difference between invading China at the risk of nuclear war and invading Iraq at the risk of massive biological and chemical attacks? Additionally, how do you explain the fact that we haven’t invaded the dozen or so African countries (with no nuclear, biological or chemical programs to speak of) where atrocities are visited upon innocent victims daily? Lincoln was right about prudence. But Bush has bastardized the concept of prudence for the sake of family vengeance, black gold and personal glory.

"Other nations were not violating the terms of a treaty that ended a war. Bush put forth many reasons to invade Iraq, not just WMD"

Guess what? Iraq was violating the terms of its treaty in January of 2001, too. Had Bush been truly interested in attacking Iraq for this reason, he’d have launched this war then. And Bush’s argument for war lied HEAVILY on the WMD argument. It was only after that argument went down the toilet, that he claimed we were concerned about human rights abuses.

"the opponents of war seemed to be totally content with a murderous thug in power and UN resolutions being violated without action"

Wrong. Opponents of war simply felt that there were far better ways to handle the situation. See next message.

"I have not seen any postings on what the opponents of war would like to have seen done here that would have achieved the objectives of getting a genocidal maniac out of power, enforcing the UN resolutions, and protecting human rights in Iraq. I would love to hear it."

Numerous alternatives have been posted to this blog, and others. Visit the archived blogs.

While I appreciate those who take the time to write something sensible in response to something on NLT (or, for that matter, on anything else), yet, I implore you to keep it civil. Please. No name calling, etc. Thank you.