Virgil61

Taken out of context it just brings a distorted view of what really happened. The US and most of Europe, as well as most of the Arab states had a vested interest in keeping the radical regime of Komenhi from defeating and occupying Iraq. It's not brain surgery; the Cold War wasn't over yet, Russians were in Afghanistan, whatever Saddam's inclinations at the time he at least provided oil to the West. We were stuck with supporting a radical anti-Western Iran or Iraq. It was an awful choice but one that needed to be made. It may have been ugly, but given the situation sometimes realpolitik is preferable to singing kumbaya-in-a-circle foreign policy. Sanctions took place AFTER the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. The main reason Iraqis died is the allocation of resources that Saddam put in place that deprived his own people and his failure to follow the UN guidelines following the Gulf War. War sucks, people die, what does anyone expect? More Iraqis have died killing each other than anything the US/UK has done. The invasion was stupid, the occupation even worse. I won't even begin to defend the first and I'm very critical of how the second was conducted, having first-hand experience on both. On the other hand what I saw on the ground there and on TV here were often drastically different. Most of Iraq is and was fairly peaceful. Shia areas of the mid and south of the country are usually safe-routes for US troops. The Kurdish north is almost violence free. It's the Sunni Triangle that most of the combat and deaths are occurring vis-a-vis the US troops. They're Sunni, as was Saddam. They bullied, jailed, killed and pummeled Shias and Kurds for thirty years and received the benefits. Now they're at the bottom of the pile and they're ticked off. I have little sympathy for them. I do have sympathy for the Shia and Kurds although their penchant for revenge and vengeance has led them to a civil war, one that I contend would have occurred anyway in the next generation. The Sunni are reaping what they sowed, the US invasion was the catalyst but some sort of catalyst was bound to happen sooner or later.

Here's a thread with more than you'll ever want to know. A very good and comprehensive listing of links.

I completely agree with the part above. Why execute him for those murders only? There is a long list of atrocities he's responsible for. In 2003 I personally witnessed a mini-killing fields of sorts where several thousand Shia remains were dumped over a period of years from the prisons. I saw families walking to pick through uprooted remains trying to identify loved ones. In late '91 my unit went into Northern Iraq to protect the Kurdish refugees including survivors of the gas attacks. Gruesome stories and a lot of deaths from exposure in the mountains as well. Remember the Nuremburg trials and Ceacescu's execution didn't produce martyrs. I understand the fears of making a martyr are well founded, yet I'm not sure that the abject stupidity of a non-victimized part of the Iraqi and Arab population willing to make Saddam one should really matter. Saddam was no Che, he was a lot closer to Stalin or Hitler. Everyone's made some good points I think, yet his death leaves me still with a feeling of 'good riddance'.

Fine. The post is about Saddam's execution not about the legitimacy of the invasion, WMDs and occupation.

Well it's a done deal. I'm not a fan of the death penalty in general but I can't help thinking 'good riddance' to a man responsible for so many of his own people's deaths.

Onasander, PM me with your mailing address. I'll spring for a decent dictionary. I've been there, done that in Iraq and it's the least I can do. V

Outstanding review Ursus. Very enjoyable.

That's nice, they've become more secular and westernized due to time spent in the UK I'd wager. Spend some time in the Middle East and you'll see a different story. I've always been respectful and intrigued by other cultures having spent part of my youth and my adult life in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. After seeing the thousandth young woman in an Islamic country treated like chattel, local minority Christians afraid to reveal their religion and forced to veil-up, seeing groups of young Islamic men who'd slit your throat in a minute if they could get away with it, etc., etc., I 'lost that lovin' feeling'. The Spaniards fought the reconquista for centuries on their way back through their own country to re-coup their own lands. Fine with me if they didn't want them in a Catholic church.

On the way to the family from Seattle I stopped in Portland (Oregon) at Powell's bookstore. Powell's may be the single largest bookstore in the US covering one whole city block and a couple of floors with new and used books interspersed with each other. I got my son a $500 gift certificate and picked up excellent quality used copies of JFC Fuller's Caesar, Kahn's Education of Julius Caesar, Niall Ferguson's Collapse, WT Sherman's Memoirs, and Cavalla-Sforza's The Great Human Diasporas all for under $30. My Italian mother of course is more sensible. She got me socks, underwear and a Columbia fleece jacket.

I just put Rainbow's Live in Germany '76 on my MP3 player a week or two ago. Very much worth a listen if you're a fan. You remind me though, I need to put Hunky Dory and/or Ziggy Stardust on as well, absolute classics.

There are so many good ones but here are some of my favorites: - - Frank Zappa - (Black Sabbath)- Hendrix - John Mclaughlin - Rory Gallagher

Of course we care! I hear there's a dramatic chariot chase down the Via Appia between Hannibal and Varro.

I'd say pretty much most anything off of this Beatles compilation. Does anyone under 35 listen to the Beatles anymore? 1. Yesterday 2. I'll Follow the Sun 3. I Need You 4. Girl 5. In My Life 6. Words of Love 7. Here, There and Everywhere 8. Something 9. And I Love Her 10. If I Fell 11. I'll Be Back 12. Tell Me What You See 13. Yes It Is 14. Michelle 15. It's Only Love 16. You're Gonna Lose That Girl 17. Every Little Thing 18. For No One 19. She's Leaving Home 20. Long and Winding Road 21. This Boy 22. Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) 23. You've Got to Hide Your Love Away 24. I Will 25. P.S. I Love You

I hope it doesn't mess with the pending arrival of the jolly fat fellow. It'll be cutting it close on some of the islands. Many aren't projected to have power back up for severaL more days, possibly into late next week.

The whole Puget Sound area was hit hard Thursday night/Friday morning. Over 1.5 million without power at it's worst, including my place. About half of Seattle and Tacoma were out. Last night I drove for thirty blocks or so in west Seattle and not a kilowatt of power on. My power just came back on an hour ago.

Not quite on target but maybe worth reading as well: How Democratic was the Roman Republic? Public Spectacles and Roman Social Relations

Seems they are selling it in stores as well. Here the online version if anyone is interested: Here's the report link (my 'insert link' above isn't working): http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_r...1206/index.html

They are saying that today's survivors meeting may be the last held since the vets are getting up there in age.

It depends on your view of the Republic as a good thing I suppose. Compromise from a position of strength isn't the same as compromise from a position of weakness--see Machiavelli's "The Prince". Reaching compromise--often ugly in form--between plebes/patricians was part of Roman politics. Much has been written on how this breakdown led to the end of the Republic. Perhaps you've missed this. The correct answer by you, rather than emoticon mocking, might have been; By this time the internal dynamics of Roman politics had degraded so much they weren't able to make the compromises of previoius generations. Thank you, anyway, for making my point. The way for Octavian's proscriptions were paved by Sulla. Sulla's reforms failed because they rolled back to a time before the Gracchi, sometimes you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Because no institutional reforms were made that may have stuck and the roll-back wasn't tenable the half-wits began anew. I think you mistake parochial Roman political vengeance with some sort of far-sightedness of counter-reforms. I'm sure the word 'precedence' and the concept of an "educated guess" existed in the latin of 1st century BC.

While I admit Sulla is a fascinating figure I can't be but against him. When it all comes out in the wash his influence on the Republic is a great big minus. His war with Marius was conducted in such a politically scorched earth manner that the compromises or reconciliations of past internal conflicts were now fought in a civil war. In checking reforms he tried to put the genie back in the bottle but whatever skills he showed as a military man (and they were great) he lacked when trying to stabilize Rome politically. A man with more political prescience could have worked to diffuse the Republic's internal conflicts with an eye towards future stability once in power. Instead he proscribed on a level greater than ever seen before and rejected past reforms.

Very funny!

I didn't support the invasion though I took part in it, but I support military action by polling privates, corporals and Reservist/Guardsman even less. Rather stupid way to run a military. It still doesn't answer the challenge to your original statement, which was incorrect, stating Iraqis want us out now. What of previous polls that show Iraqis wanted us to stay? What if, when we leave and the country goes even further into sh*t--which it will--and the polls change again--do we re-enter? Polls are nice, fine and all. They're a poor substitute as the sole rationale for foreign or military policy.

Based on Michael Richard's latest 'troubles' here in the US. Simply hilarious. National Lampoon Lost Seinfeld Episode

Oh you must. It's brilliant. (though the 3 volume narrative can be quite the time consumer) I too loved Grant's memoirs. Though not necessarily a Civil War history, "Lincoln" by David Herbert Donald is simply one of the finest examples of single volume biography there is. For me, the politics of the era is as interesting as war itself. I agree, it's outstanding, perhaps the best biography I've ever read. I'd forgotten all about those sources--Chestnut and Rhodes. I was living in the barracks at Ft Bragg when the Ken Burns documentary came out in late '90. Being more like college dorms than what you see in the movies, there were always about 7 or 8 of us gathered around the TV in my room on the Sunday night in complete silence as each episode was played on PBS. Shelby Foote and Ed Bearss were real stand out characters.

The Civil War was mentioned on another thread as being one of the favorite areas of history buffs in the US (and the UK it seems). Which got me wondering, what books of the thousands written on that era, have stood out as favorites? For me it was the old stand-by Bruce Catton's 'Stillness at Appomattox" which I still remember fondly from my high school years (Mr. Lincoln's Army isn't bad itself). The best all-in-one is "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson, very intelligent and well written volume. Lee's Lieutenants by Douglas Freeman is excellent and U.S. Grant's Memoirs is among the best military memoirs ever written, yes up there with JC's Commentaries. Never read Shelby Foote as much as I'd like to. Your choices?