·support our troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan, Clinton Liebrary, http://PoliSat.Com , PoliSatDOTcom, Salute America's Heroes, Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Gore's Global Warming theory, support milblogs, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard, BlackFive, MilBlogs, MilBlogging, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, HotAir.Com, JawaReport, PajamasMedia , VictoryCaucus , VetsForFreedom , FreedomsWatch , DayByDayCartoon , WrennCom.Com , Video , Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support PoliSat.Com, support WrennCom.Com, ·
Back to the Future with Saddam. ·
November 5, 2006--
Court sentences Saddam Hussein to death by hanging while Bush's critics maintain that "if Bush
hadn't toppled Hussein, the world would be better off."·
Since chaos today seems to rein
Since chaos today seems to reinfrom toppling the tyrant, Hussein, his sentence to hanging does not silence chanting: "For chaos, the Dubya's to blame." The "Blame-Dubya" mantra maintains "if Bush hadn't toppled Hussein, then "better" would be the world that we see." So, what if we test what they claim?
The critics of Dubya have thundered that toppling Saddam was a blunder and strategies for Afghanistan's war without far more troops was a blunder. Their hindsight re-writing of hist'ry-- accounting by one-sided entries-- attempts to conceal conclusions revealed by pairing correlative entries.
To rightly accomplish this task means fully re-writing the past correlatively pairing what hindsight's despairing in half-way re-writing the past. This trip to the past would then fix the stage for events to transfix the world we now know so "hist'ry" could show the Anti-Bush World in '06.
If hind-sighted views Bush had heeded that "War in Afghanistan needed a much larger force"
we would have, of course, quite diff'rent by Afghans been treated. The
warlords opposed to al Qaeda's and Taliban's methods as haters
would nevertheless have seen us, at
best, like Russians-- as foreign invaders.
Perceived as such foreign
Perceived as such foreign enforcers,in southern Afghanistan borders, the warlords would not have helped us to spot bin Laden in old Tora Bora. It's likely they'd help him escape to cross-border lands where he'd stay and serve as a threat to help them eject the Yanks if to conquer they stayed.
It's likely such large Yankee presence would hinder our strategy's essence: Emergence of leaders accepted as leaders of Afghans, not "puppets" in essence. And warlords who'd helped us eject the Taliban's yoke from their necks would view our remaining like Russians invading, and us they would want to eject.
They then would invite the return of all the al Qaedas who'd yearn to earn warlords' thanks by helping kill Yanks for warlords' "to power" return. With Yanks being viewed as invaders of fiefdoms that Muslims had favored, Musharraf would soon perceive it as "doom" to stay on the side of "invaders."
The waning allegiance that he would show us would later deplete our means to detect the dots to connect the network of A. Q. Khan's deeds. And then Bush's critics who'd claimed invading would yield us the same defeat Russians faced in Nineteen-Eight-Eight would chant the old "quagmire" refrain.
Such "quagmire" Saddam would perceive to increase his chance for relief from "no-flying" zones through bellicose tomes and shots at our no-fly-zone feats. From shots at our no-fly-zone planes, the risks germs and gasses remained concealed in Iraq, and tries to contract for yellow-cake, danger remained.
(Though Wilson in Two-Thousand-Three from Niger did claim to receive the proof to negate the "seeking" of "cake," 'twas found that Joe's claim was deceit.*) (*He'd twisted his "finding" that "cake" had not by Saddam been obtained from Niger as though such "finding" did show Saddam hadn't tried to find "cake.")
Beliefs that such dangers remained, the bellicose acts and Hussein's continued rejection of weapons inspections showed needs for inspections again. 'Twas clear that Hussein would refuse to let such inspections resume without massive force deployed to enforce demands that inspections resume.
So Bush would be forced to deploy a force large enough to destroy the Baathist regime unless it agreed that Blix to Iraq be deployed. Suppose Bush had listened to those in 2003 who proposed allowing more time for Hans Blix to find the weapons or deem them disposed.
August of Two-Thousand-Three Hans Blix would have said:
"I can't see a way to prove claims that weapons remain,
so 'there' they must no longer be." Since sanctions designed to prevent Saddam to thenceforth reinvent his weapons already were weak and unsteady, de jure or de facto, they'd end.
And absent continued employment of Yankees in massive deployments adjacent Iraq, Saddam would retract consent for inspectors' deployments. Saddam and our "friends" would bemoan enforcement of no-flying zones and further demand from Arabic lands the Yankees must promptly go home.
Such massive "deterrent" deployment would hamper offensive deployments against Afghan minions of warlords' dominions to end our "invasion" deployment. Such massive deployment maintained as means for deterring Hussein would increase the fervor Jihadists for terror had pre-Nine-Eleven** attained.
(**In Gulf-lands from One-Nine-Nine-One 'til Nine-One-One-Two-Thousand-One we'd down-sized our force to token-sized force, yet terror returned Nine-One-One.) The foregoing factors would be the reasons creating a need to end the employment of massive deployment by Fall of Two-Double-Oh-Three.
Such needed reduction of force would mean no inspections, of course. With sanctions destroyed, Saddam would employ oil riches for weapons, of course. His riches he promptly would turn to recreate gasses and germs and quickly resume his program to soon*** have A-Bombs for which he had yearned. (***Remember, in One-Nine-Nine-Four, 'twas learned his Bomb progress was more-- a half-a-year time to working designs-- than thought before Bush-One's Gulf War.)
Perceiving Saddam as the winner, Khadafi would offer the winner the help for a Bomb from Pakistan's Khan in Libya 's secrecy strictures. Khadafi would likely explain to Arabic, Sunni Hussein that Pakistan's Khan gave Persian Iran\ designs for its nuclear aims.
Iran would assume that Hussein was working on A-bombs again and therefore would strive to speed it's designfor nukes for deterring Hussein. And likewise, Hussein would increase the tempo to harness the beast of nuclear power on weapons to cower Iran as a threat from the East.
Two-Thousand-Six, if not sooner, Saddam could give nuclear
"boomers" for Jihadists' use on
us or our troops
without Saddam's "prints" on the
without Saddam's "prints" on the "boomers."Saddam might have thought he could con the West that the source of the bomb was Pakistan's Khan, Il Jung, or Iran instead of a nuke from Saddam.
Saddam might believe we'd destroy the lands where Jihad is employed by Shiite Jihadists or Sunni Wahhabists-- i.e., Saddam's rivals destroyed. Such alternate path of reality is hidden by hindsight mentalities of critics who claim Iraq would be tame if Bush had possessed their mentality.
And now that Il Jung has proclaimed a "nuclear" bomb is the name of Jung's new explosion we felt in October, Oh-Six, there'd be four in the game: Il Jung's North Korea is one; Khadaffi would not have undone his work on a bomb, and faster Iran would seek one to counter Saddam's.
Such full-hindsight rewrite of history is worse than the present reality, where war in Iraq brings danger that's not as great as re-written reality. Bin Laden remains on the loose obscuring a more-vital truth: A Russian-style plot most Afghans do not perceive as the goal we pursue.
And likewise, our un-Russian goal helps Pakistan stay in our fold. Though war in Iraq is tougher in fact, to win will serve liberty's goals. Although Kim Il Jung took the route of testing a "bomb," and we doubt the Persians will cease enrichment, at least Saddam and Khadaffi are "out."
If critics "their way" would have had instead of "strategery's" path, posterity's risks of nuclear "hits" more likely would be twice as bad. To whom are our thanks most deserving? Our troops for courageously serving in dangerous roles for liberty's goals, so thank them we must for their serving.
musical "thanks" to our troops in planes and on ships
and in boots the link shown below is
where you may go to view and hear "Thanks to Our
Permanent links for stand-alone viewing of
the above video (and a number of related videos) are at http://PoliSat.Com/BackToTheFutureWithSaddam.htm.
--Jim Wrenn. Editor at PoliSat.Com.
PS-- If you correctly suspect that the text
above is written in rhythm and rhyme, see the text box at http://PoliSat.Com/RewindRewriteReplay.htm.
Permanent links for stand-alone viewing of the above video (and a number of related videos) are at http://PoliSat.Com/BackToTheFutureWithSaddam.htm.
--Jim Wrenn. Editor at PoliSat.Com.
PS-- If you correctly suspect that the text above is written in rhythm and rhyme, see the text box at http://PoliSat.Com/RewindRewriteReplay.htm.
Sites that Feature PoliSat.Com: