A Predator drone watches over the final convoy as it crosses into Kuwait.
A former SAS soldier who took a piece of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s bronze statue, has been told to return the chunk by the country’s government.
However, Iraqi leaders are now claiming that the piece is part of the country’s heritage and have threatened to charge Ely with theft unless he hands back the metal.
- SAS Saddam statue: Iraq demands back chunk taken home as trophy (dailymail.co.uk)
- Iraq demands return of piece of Hussein’s statue (foxnews.com)
- Iraq demands return of Saddam Hussein’s arse (go.theregister.com)
- Iraq wants Saddam’s Arse back…. (punjapit.wordpress.com)
Here’s the video from the other day.
If Obama truly does mean it’s time to focus on our country, then his extracurricular wars will have to stop. Unless he’s just spitting talking points.
In the case of Afghanistan, the argument has always been whether or not the Afghans are ready. With recent comments from Afghan president Hamid Karzai … who cares if they are or not?
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said if the United States and Pakistan ever went to war, his country would back Islamabad.
There comes a point when American blood, sweat, money and effort are no longer worth the cause. Our military has won their war in Afghanistan, and we owe them nothing. If it’s time to bring our troops home from Iraq, then surely it’s time to bring them home from Afghanistan after these remarks.
I should note several Afghan officials have rebuffed Karzai’s statement.
- Afghanistan to help Pakistan if attacked (scorpsshadow.wordpress.com)
- Afghanistan President Said “His Country Would Stand Beside Pakistan In A War With U.S. (pobeptsworld.wordpress.com)
- Karzai Is an Enemy of the United States (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- Karzai: Of course I’d side with Pakistan over America! (hotair.com)
No clear answer has been given by pacifists to the question: “What would justify war?”
The pacifist hordes often give conflicting answers. For example, Ron Paul (who claims a form of pacifism) was interviewed by John Stossel in 2007, and was asked what would justify a war.
If you’re attacked, you have a right and an obligation to defend (your) country. I do not believe there is ever a moral justification to start the war.
That sounds nice, but I found Paul’s answer interesting, and vague. What constitutes an attack? Is it on your property, your citizens, or must it be within your national borders? Pacifists have been unable to clarify this position for me over the years.
What does this have to do with Iraq, and my greater point later?
Before the 2003 Iraq invasion, Saddam was repeatedly ‘attacking’ the US and her allies in a little discussed conflict in the no fly zones. Yet Ron Paul, and others, have frequently said that there was no justification for the invasion of Iraq. So … shooting/attacking US citizens, and destroying US property is not an attack?
I’m of a different viewpoint, and my training to invade Iraq under Clinton proved that even Slick Willy agreed with me.
So why bring this up now? Iraq was a resounding success, and Saddam is dead. Because we may be heading for another war.