O'REILLY'S IRAQ SOLUTION: Run The Place Like Saddam Did!

[kpete]

O’Reilly’s solution: Run the place like Saddam

Published by Mike Stark June 19th, 2006 in Uncategorized
On today’s (6/19/06) Radio Factor with Bill O’Reilly, Mr. Loofah-falafel shared with us his strategy for keeping the peace in Iraq. As the title notes, it involves ruthless murder.

O’Reilly: Now to me, they’re not fighting it hard enough. See, if I’m president, I got probably another 50-60 thousand with orders to shoot on sight anybody violating curfews. Shoot them on sight. That’s me… President O’Reilly… Curfew in Ramadi, seven o’clock at night. You’re on the street? You’re dead. I shoot you right between the eyes. Ok? That’s how I run that country. Just like Saddam ran it. Saddam didn’t have explosions - he didn’t have bombers. Did he? because if you got out of line, your dead.

Now… is that the kind of country I want to have for Iraq? No… But you have to have that for a few months to stabilize the situation so the Iraqi government can get organized, can get security in place and can get the structure going.

More plus AUDIO AT:
http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/06/19/oreillys-solution-run-the-place-like-saddam/

[BayCityProgressive]

1. what an idiot

glad we spent hundreds of billions to run the place just like Saddam did. We could have kept that for free.

[Gatchaman]

2. This would be the easiest solution

and there would be no shortage of iraqi's willing to impliment it, but the problem is, how do you get rid of this kind of practice once "order" is achieved?

[chelsea0011]

3. Now once more Bill. Why are we there?

He is all for this invasion and occupation and now sees the best way to run the country is with the guy the US overthrew. Why does he have a voice?

[havocmom]

4. Hope Olbermann's staff is pulling O'Reilly sound bites

about how Saddam had to be taken out.

The Worst (and dumbest) Person On TV.... Bill-O!

[Canuckistanian]

5. In his own idiotic way, he's got a point

Saddam DID keep the country at relative peace by wielding an iron fist.

He kept the religious factions at bay by mercilessly executing their leaders and jailing the followers.

Of course, he had the advantage of hundreds of thousands of WILLING and WELL PAID spies, too. Saddam knew about plots and rebellions almost before they happened.

And he understood the country, its language and its traditions and customs. He knew how far he could go and when to stop to prevent outright civil war.

So, is the US willing to do all that, too? Then if that's the case, the US would officially lower itself so far on the moral scale that it would be considered a pariah, just like Saddam.

One could almost say they're there right now.

[texastoast]

7. From a commander who spent 8 months there

Last year, our rah-rah-rah Repub Scout troop had a Marine commander come and give our boys a talk. He was the father of five and had just returned from eight months of active duty in Iraq. The boys kept him busy asking questions about snakes, spiders, sand, guns, and throwing up. All the while he had a 600-picture PPT presentation running in the background showing pictures of equipment, the landscape, the troops, the camps, etc. All of a sudden, toward the end of the meeting, horrible, horrible pictures started showing up. First was a picture of a Marine on fire after a military vehicle blew up and the Marine was running away from the vehicle. The next one was of other soldiers trying to put the fire out. I remember a soldier carrying a baby covered with what I thought was vomit but found out it was chemical burns. There was a picture of one soldier getting his last rites--half his face was missing. One of the parents said something, and--get this--the commander turned around, looked at the screen, and said, "Yep, there's some pretty rough stuff in there." And he let it roll and kept talking!! The boys started staring at the pictures, and finally, one parent stood up and shouted, "Turn it off!! Turn it off!!" And ever so slowly, the commander walked over to the projector and shut it off.

I spoke with him at length after the meeting. One of the things he pointed out--and I've heard this from others--is that, "These people are tribal. The baddest dude on the block is in charge. It's been that way for thousands of years, and there is no way the U.S. is going to change them until they decide to be changed." Saddam has said that he wasn't afraid of the U.S.--he was afraid of the other major faction leaders.

This from a Marine, a Marine who was definitely against the war and who feels we are wasting our time there and who feels the troops should come home immediately.

[Canuckistanian]

10. Good story

I think I've heard about this guy (or one like him).

Everyone should understand EXACTLY what's going on in the field, not just the FAUX News "Cowboys & Indians" version.

[Aristus]

6. We already ARE running it like Saddam did.

Indiscriminate massacres of innocent people, torture, police-state checkpoints everywhere you go, a callous disregard for the soldiers (who truly love their country, regardless of who's leading it) and the risks they face...

Yep...Saddam would be proud. :mad::grr::mad::grr:

[peacebird]

8. based on NPR tonight I would say that IS what we are doing

it was a piece on Ramadi - which we are "taking over" once again. Kind of like Fallujah but this time we have decided to build a permanent fortress in the midst so we can have the "high ground" in future battles.

Our troops went in during the middle of the night. The first "detainee's" crime? He had a cell phone - hence he must be a terrorist. Never mind that our govt points to the booming sales of cell phones in Iraq as proof of "PROGRESS". Then the soldiers said 6 "MAMSI"s (?) (means Men of army age) had fled a mosque - so our boys called for a gunship to "light them up" and then hooted as they were taken out.
:wtf:
Seems to me that between the rape rooms, torture, infinite detention without charges, and continual slaughter of "insurgents" - where the definition of insurgent has been so tortured as to mean "Anyone who gets in the way of our bullets or bombs" - even unarmed toddlers.... Well - seems to me we have already replaced Saddam's regime with one even more unholy. Only major difference is under Saddam there was more electricity and less random violence in the streets.

[Union Thug]

9. Wow. So I don't know if he's technically a hypocrite or not...

My head is spinning...

[BlooInBloo]

11. Now we just need to find all of his quotes...

... where he's bloviating about how much better the place is without Saddam.

And now he wants to repeat it.

Lying evil stupid jackass.

[proud patriot]

12. Hello Mcfly Hello

:crazy:

[Jacobin]

13. I suppose he fails to see the irony in supporting the invasion

of IraqNam to topple Saddam and now wanting the US to act like Saddam

Well, we are acting like Saddam, except far worse, and the Iraqis seem to like it much less

[tanyev]

14. Well hey, Bill, Saddam's still around. Maybe he could earn some

spare change offering his services as a consultant.

[Initech]

15. Hey O'Reilly - you stupid chickenhawk asshole...

if you want Iraq ran like it was under Hussein then what the fuck was the point of the war anyhow? After all, you and your stupid friends on Faux "News" were the ones who sold the war to the brainwashed moron masses.

[ComerPerro]

16. Most right wingers would govern like Saddam,

and most of them only hate the Taliban because its the wrong religion

[Julius Civitatus]

17. K&R - This guy is such a f#cking hypocrite, and a chickenhawk to boot

Isn't it amazing how these draft dodgers love to use militaristic language? This guy is the biggest pile of shit in the American media.







--------------------------

[Imajika]

18. Actually, O'Reilly is probably correct....

As much as I detest O'Reilly the blowhard, he does have a point here. It is precisely the reason we shouldn't be trying to build "democracy" in Iraq.

These are tribal people with virtually nothing in common with the West. We don't even begin to understand how things really work in Afghanistan, Iraq and much of the rest of the world. We just have nothing in common with it.

You wanna occupy and run Iraq the way you see fit, you gotta be willing to be incredibly bloody and brutal.

The US, indeed the developed world in general, is not willing to do that. This is one of the primary reasons the entire "Iraqi democracy" idea was a fools errand from day one. Americans don't have the heart to behave like Saddam did, therefore, the US had no real chance to succeed in this venture. We had the will to do this kind of stuff as recently as WWII when we were busy terror bombing entire German and Japanese cities with incindiary bombs in an effort to break the civlian population of their will to support their governments - break their spirit as we used to say. Those incindiary raids would kill tens of thousands of completely innocent civilians at a time. In this modern media age, there is just no will to do such things.

This "democratization project" will fail in Iraq and probably Afghanistan too because what we think of as "hearts and minds" and "compassion", a tribal people view as weakness.

If we were willing to rule with a blood soaked iron fist, work within the tribal system, and wipe out any population that even hinted at sympathizing with anyone who might oppose us, we could stabalize Iraq fairly quickly. That's what Saddam did and he controlled Iraq even after getting his butt kicked by the US and its allies in the first Gulf War.

Another example. Chechnya. Russia can't control Chechnya as it once did because with the modern media and a general unwillingness to be incredibly brutal they simply can't fully assert their will. Stalin had no such problem - hell, he deported half the damn population to Siberia. Again, it's all a matter of how brutal your willing to be.