Iraq Wants Saddam’s Butt Back From British Soldier

Spoils of war.

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.

Related articles

• 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)

Exactly What Would Justify War To The Pacifist Hordes

I’ve often asked this question in my writings and on my show. Most often, in discussions with the ignorant about Saddam being the innocent victim of Bush/Cheney aggression.

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.

WMDs In Iraq Are Irrefutable

This is a post I used to have on my show’s old website.  It’s a compilation of several posts of I’ve done in the past, and is only a small amount of the information about WMDs out there.  It is, however, more than enough to prove they existed, and were found after the invasion.  Some listeners have been requesting it.

Why is it that every time we learn Iraq did have WMDs the press plays the ‘shocked’ card?  Just how many times can you pretend to be shocked over the same story as if you’ve never heard it before?

Wikileaks released more documents this last week, and among them yet more evidence that Iraq did have WMDs at the time of the invasion, and we found them.

You’d have to be the intellectual equivalent of an amoeba to not get this by now.  Then again, we are talking about the press along with their anti-war cocktail buddies.

So what new information did we learn, and what info has been right under your nose the whole time?  You’ll find out after the jump.