Ding Dong, the Butcher's Dead

« Keep An Eye On Them

And The Winner Is… »

Ding Dong, the Butcher’s Dead

December 30, 2006 by Anna

Saddam in Hell

Michael Ramirez – Townhall

Posted in Terrorism, War on Terror | 18 Comments

18 Responses

on December 30, 2006 at 9:34 am | Reply Mary*Ann

Hope he got an appropriate welcome.
on December 30, 2006 at 10:14 am | Reply Anna puna

No no no, it truly wont be Hell until its been Francofied.

“Welcome to L’Hotel de Hecate Monsiuer Hussein, your suite is this way. You will, how they say it in American ah oui, be in the smoking section. Enjoy your stay.”
on December 30, 2006 at 1:39 pm | Reply wordsmith

Anyone wanna play “Hangman”?
on December 30, 2006 at 4:19 pm | Reply Anna

I’m sure his lovely sons were there to greet him, M*A! They are all, no doubt, in a very awful place as they should be.
on December 30, 2006 at 4:20 pm | Reply Anna

That is a great scenario, Anna! Perfect, in fact!!
on December 30, 2006 at 5:01 pm | Reply Anna

Either it’s not working for me, Word, or someone was offended and they pulled the game! Beth at Blue Star Chronicles has another Saddam animation here.
on December 30, 2006 at 6:13 pm | Reply benning

Nice cartoon, Anna! I linked to it, of course!
on December 30, 2006 at 8:23 pm | Reply Anna

I like Michael Ramirez’s cartoons. He consistantly nails it! And please, Benning, pass it along!
on December 30, 2006 at 8:59 pm | Reply Gawfer

Hmmm,

I wonder if he’ll run into any of the ones he so mercilessly killed. Wouldn’t wanna be a fly on the wall there though.
on December 30, 2006 at 9:00 pm | Reply Gawfer

He is about 3 inches taller now though.
on December 30, 2006 at 11:55 pm | Reply Anna

Well, if he killed them, they must not be that bad because they must have disagreed with him or hated him. Then again, if you believe in purgatory, they’re probably having a field day there!
on December 30, 2006 at 11:56 pm | Reply Anna

Well, Gawfer, I could do without that height gain, but he certainly deserved it!
on January 1, 2007 at 3:00 pm | Reply ymarsakar

Anna Puna, very funny rendition of the Fwench.

I don’t believe in a Hell or Heaven, which simply makes my sense of justice all the harsher for it, for I believe that punishment and rewards must be taken care of in the temporal world, whenever possible. When it is not possible, when Saddam’s crimes and his future possibility of causing more harm to humanity, outweighs any possible use to keeping him alive, then he shall be gotten rid of, of that I approve without condition or self-doubt.

I believe in the efficiency of executions. I am not above a little creative punishments and executions (historically they are many executions more painful and more psychologically terrifying than hanging or the firing squad), but it all depends. If you take the time to do to a man or woman what they deserve in life, then think about all the other enemies of humanity that aren’t getting your attention. I cannot abide by such wasted time and work. Carrying out executions for thousands of dictators and terrorists, is hard enough as it is, perfecting the perfect creative punishment for each, I shall let fate do with such as she pleases.

This is one of the things I percieved about Iraq and the Iraqis, Anna. I knew that they had the barbarity, the chaos, and the ability to deal death that we here in the US lacked. Our military does not lack, our politicians and our population does, however, at least now they do. We need them, to balance our lawful ACLU degeneration and GitMo human rights stagnation. They need us to stabilize their chaotic politics, tribes, and violent criminals.

I have never forgotten the big picture, Anna. I know that President Bush is too compassionate to execute the terrorists we have in GitMo and international prisons (terrorist released from Germany that killed an American navy diver). But the Iraqis and Afghanistanis? They have no such self-limiting compassion, of which I find very useful to us.

Make use of it, I say. If America wants to wait around to get slapped until America unleashes the full power of absolute annihilation in this war, then I suppose our contingency plan is to rely upon our shock troops to do our dirty work for us.

Bush won’t be around forever, but the Iraqis will. I have always known that America (Hollywood) was too decadent and weak to do what was necessary, while the American (Jacksonians) had the will but not the political clout to force policy changes on the President.

If anyone thought that war was simply grabbing the biggest hammer and crushing the enemy with invulnerable strength and numbers, will have been smashed in this war of ours right at the beginning. Because with the firepower of the US against the raggedy terrorists living hand to mouth on kidnapping ransoms, war has never been about who had the biggest hammer, but about who can use their hammer with the best skill.

The ability to adapt, the ability to kill your enemies using whatever means are available, and seeing the right path to take. Endure, in enduring grow strong.

DQ sparked a post in which I did some background research on MacArthur. Those interested in more Total War flavors might find it interesting here.

Link

Limited wars always have problems. Total wars have theirs as well, but it isn’t as… well quagmirish really. If you win, you win. If you lose, you lose. Simple, if not easy. But limited wars, such as MacArthur’s problems with Truman in Korea and vice a versa? An apple of a different color indeed.
on January 1, 2007 at 8:16 pm | Reply Anna

There are many issues with the war and we can only hope that at some point, someone in charge will have the nerve to take a stand and end the wishy-washy, weak-kneed position the “powers that be” are taking now.

In the end, Saddam got what he deserved, though I would have liked to see him suffer a little bit more as he was still way too cocky at the end…still thinking he was the one in control.
on January 1, 2007 at 9:08 pm | Reply ymarsakar

testing something
on January 1, 2007 at 9:11 pm | Reply ymarsakar

Press is eating up my post that I wrote just after I did the last one. So I waited awhile, now it is still happening. So I posted the second part here at my blog.

Link

It elaborates on some of the points I skipped over, concerning Iraqi desert power.
on January 1, 2007 at 9:21 pm | Reply ymarsakar

When a person dies, Anna, his power ends. As I see it, this means I no longer have to worry about what they deserve or do not deserve, because they are no longer a factor or obstacle. And if they are not an obstacle, then I would rather devote my energies to existing problems, and existing threats.

Those who worry about making “martyrs” out of people, are more concerned with the power of an Idea and a Philosophy, such a Power can control people and raise them up in opposition against you. But there is a limit to all things, even for fascism and the worship of the occult or suicide pack, they need agents on this earth. Agents in which infernal power is channeled. Destroy their agents, and the corruption of hearts and souls cease, for a time, a generation at least.

Did you know that one reason why Al Sadr wasn’t killed was because the military advisers told Bush and those in charge that it would cause the Shia to “uprise” because it would “martyr” Al Sadr?

Such advice from such advisers know nothing about the power of belief and the ability to channel raw human potential and power.

Such power exists, but all power may be manipulated, if not through the laws of physics, then through Quantum Mechanics.

The Art of War is not known to Bush’s advisers and it is not known to Bush himself. Like all decent sorts, same with Gerald Ford, they simply care too much for humanity to do what is necessary. Their economic policies are competent and good for a peace time economy, but their ability to wage Total or even Limited wars, are of limited function. Ford proved that quite well when he didn’t veto Congress’s bills to cut funding, when he vetoed 50 other bills. Ford believed the government needed to cut back, regardless of the affect on military morale and military consequences for America and her allies. It was an economic decision, not a security one. Bush himself has done a good job protecting America, but only because he has unleashed the might of the United States military. Now the same military is being strangled by ROE so tight the soldiers are more scared of being court martialed than killed by terrorists. Bush’s lack of Johnson micromanaging intentions, play a large part here.

Let us not forget the Democrats and their allies on the Left. If they hadn’t been so busy attacking Bush for purely partisan gain and for personal power, I would have spent the years after 9/11 coming up with improvements to Bush’s plans instead of trying to defend Bush. Instead of focusing the energy on how to best win Iraq and correct problems, the people of America wasted the first 3 years arguing over things the Democrats simply made up.

None of that saved Saddam, of course. But the duty of evil is to cause destruction and die. The duty of the good is to live and harness power to build and protect, regardless of how many terroists it kills in the process.
on January 1, 2007 at 11:50 pm | Reply American power; Saddam’s fall « Sake White

[...] American power; Saddam’s fall Filed under: Humanity — ymarsakar @ 8:19 pm Update, inspired by Anna’s post on Saddam. A funny Fwench impression in the comments section. [...]

Comments RSS

	Lisa Coburn on Davis Grier “Deeg”…
	Tom Seeman on Wednesday Hero – 11…
	tshang on Wednesday Hero – 11…
	Shawn on Hollywood: Yesterday Versus…
	Anna on Where Were You?

A Rose By Any Other Name

Ding Dong, the Butcher’s Dead

Like this:

18 Responses

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Good People & Places

Heroes & Homefront

News, Info & Gossip

Who’s Saying What

Who Me?

Lovely Linkage

Blogrolls

Top Posts

Archives

a

Recent Posts

Flickr Photos

Follow “A Rose By Any Other Name”