BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Mr Red
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 03:33 PM

Come one folks, lets have a bit of objectivity here. With Saddam paraded as a sad looser (Name a regime wot never did that) will it erdicate insurgency? Of course not. Will it increase it? get real. Will the criminals he let out carry-on their raids on convoys containing banknotes? Tanks didn't last time.

It will take the heat out of the Saddam issue. Enter the Shiite/Kurd/Other(specify) discussion group. But I would bet on far far less torture involved and little of it physical. Sunny times ahead?

Saddam - he couldn't even run a Bath now!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 03:43 PM

Ms Peg, Yes, Wormtongue is in Return Of The King. He has not a small role to play before it is over. Strange parallels abound here. Reality and art--which is like which?

Old Geo. Bush let Saddam get away. To what end---for what reason? To provide a stage for his kid's production to play out...

Frodo let Gollum live---to what end? See the film to find out.

Those who have read the books every year, scroll down!But if you don't want the end of the movie spoiled for you PLEASE, DO NOT SCROLL DOWN.


















Frodo gave his finger for you !!
Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: michaelr
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 03:52 PM

Bush said violence in Iraq will continue.

Translation: "We're gonna keep killing Iraqis."

Or maybe: "Iraqis will keep killing us, and each other."

The only good thing about Saddam's capture is that IF he undergoes a real trial, he can call Donald Rumsfeld as a defense witness. That I'd like to see!

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 04:13 PM

Okay, so Doug and I agree that Saddam's capture is cause for rejoicing. :-)

Man, I would hate to have to go without a baath for that long...

Meanwhile, politics continues to revolve around inane, media-driven "personality" contests between official good guys (like the President or candidate of your choice) and official bad guys (like the evil, mustachioed or bearded foreign leader or the candidate not of your choice).

Just like a TV show. Good guys and bad guys. Hmmm.

And the real fact of the matter is that the figureheads come and go like ducks in a shooting gallery while the real powers that be (money and the gun) continue to call the shots and write the script....and handpick the next official bad guy for the public to focus their fickle attention upon. (The number one official bad guy in the Muslim World is Ariel Sharon, don't forget...Bush comes up a vigorous second, not to be understimated, however.)

Meanwhile, will Osama Bin Laden ever reappear, or will a new "threat to the entire World" have to take his place? Stay tuned. The only thing that is certain is, there WILL be a new one when a new one is needed by the System. I predict that Saddam will soon be almost forgotten, just like Manuel Noriega, but at least he will have regular access to shaving equipment and flush toilets again.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 05:02 PM

Little Hawk.

I think your observation is quite correct. But historically this activity is different from when and whom? Long before the US was a colony this type of political spin was used by the enlightened countries of the time. Those bastions of piety, honesty, and integrety, the Jesuits told their converted Indian allies that the English crucified Jesus Christ in Orleans, France. Or another place that suited their agenda. All for the purpose of spreading the power of the mother church as they tried to occupy and colonized new lands.
Not always in the name of God unless that God be commerce and cash.

And politcal spin and hypocracy was not a new thing at that time either.

So please don't think that the US and it's current allies have the corner on this agenda crap. They are just better at it than anyones else at the moment.

Don

And I rather like the Bearded Saddam gives him a wise if not rustic countenenace don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 05:05 PM

Actually, I think he would do well as Hagrid if Robbie Coltrane wants to give up the job

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Peg
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 05:11 PM

Art: begging your pardon, but I have seen it, and Wormtongue does NOT appear in the film version of Return of the King. Perhaps he'll be in the extended version that will be released later. The Scouring of the Shire doesn't either (it's a bit of a foreshadowed thing in the first film's extended version, though).

Thomas: Sorry you're afflicted with flu; lots of fluids and rest for you! Feel better.
As to content, well,I was astonished by the love-in media coverage all over the TV this morning. I am wondering whether this will end the war. How many more lost lives, how much more destruction, how much more economic ruin, will have to be endured by both sides? I am sure there will still be attempts to uncover proof of weapons of mass destruction; it seems to me that by now Bush's cronies should have been able to fabricate something more substantial on that...

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 05:19 PM

I noticed that the army shaved off his beard. Do you think
they gave him a GI haircut too?

Ahab got his white whale.

Meanwhile thousands of innocent Iraqi women and children have been killed and wounded and you are not apt to see any meaningful statistic
on US media. Just pro-Bush propaganda.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 05:30 PM

Not just pro-Bush propaganda, but the censoring of the three Democratic presidential candidates at the back of the pack, whom Koppel took to task in last week's debate for remaining in the race...

The World According to Ted Koppel's ABC News deemed the campaigns of Kucinich, Mosley Braun and Sharpton frivolous. Here is the exchange, from the FAIR website:

"How did Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun get into this thing?" Koppel was quoted in the Washington Post (12/10/03). "Nobody seems to know. Some candidates who are perceived as serious are gasping for air, and what little oxygen there is on the stage will be taken up by one-third of the people who do not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination."

Koppel's dismissive attitude towards those three candidates carried over into the debate itself, as evidenced by this question:

"This is a question to Ambassador Braun, Rev. Sharpton, Congressman Kucinich. You don't have any money, at least not much. Rev. Sharpton has almost none. You don't have very much, Ambassador Braun. The question is, will there come a point when polls, money and then ultimately the actual votes that will take place here, in places like New Hampshire, the caucuses in Iowa, will there come a point when we can expect one or more of the three of you to drop out? Or are you in this as sort of a vanity candidacy?"

Kucinich's response to that question generated perhaps the most media coverage his campaign has received so far:

"Ted, you know, we started at the beginning of this evening talking about an endorsement. Well, I want the American people to see where the media takes politics in this country. To start with endorsements, to start talking about endorsements. Now we're talking about polls. And then we're talking about money. Well, you know, when you do that, you don't have to talk about what's important to the American people.

"Ted, I'm the only one up here that actually, on the stage, that actually voted against the Patriot Act. And voted against the war. The only one on this stage. I'm also one of the few candidates up here who's talking about taking our healthcare system from this for-profit system to a not-for-profit, single-payer, universal health care for all. I'm also the only one who has talked about getting out of NAFTA and the WTO and going back to bilateral trade conditioned on workers rights, human rights and the environment. Now, I may be inconvenient for some of those in the media, but I'm, you know, sorry about that."

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 05:42 PM

Don - Agreed. It's the same old routine as was ever used for propaganda.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 05:56 PM

And I know this is drift - but I'm sorry to hear they cut short the ending of the Return of the King. A real misjudgement - I think Tolkien would have been very indignant.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Peter T.
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 06:26 PM

It is hard to imagine anything more foolish, but indicative of the foolishness in charge, to parade around and humiliate Saddam. Anyone with a brain would have treated him carefully. Showing the medical testing is a disgrace. The celebrations will be short lived, but the humiliation of the Iraqi monster father god will remain in people's minds, and cause endless trouble. It is hard to imagine doing anything to get Iraqis sympathetic once again to such a butcher, but they did it.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Gareth
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 06:35 PM

Ye Gods ! - I can picture the posts now !

"No evidence or pictures of SH - Therefore they did not capture him, is a Bush plot etc etc ad nauseam."

Acutually I was doing a little research the other day in our local rag's of 60 years ago, and there were pictures of Von Runsted going for a walk in Bridgend, South Wales, as a prisoner of war in 1945, with, I may add a token escort of one officer.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 06:54 PM

I understand the White House issued a another "Do Not Gloat" request, so the only thing I will say is that the only other person who looked more homeless than Saddam was Dean, when asked about his views on the capture. Lieberman appears invigorated, and may yet pull the nomination away, especially when the capture of Saddam tends to undercut the Gore endorsement (he never did have good timing).

I suspect the Bush people will let the Iraqis try Saddam for several good reasons.

If the American or coalition forces, or an International tribunal conduct the trial, the "Muslim street" will view it as a victors trial, while the Iraqis have just been given respondsibility for their own justice in a limited fashion. What better way to lend it legitimacy, than to try their own dictator.

Second, the trial will not have the protections of American law, so it can be conducted in secret, in accordance with Muslim tradition. Too many Iraqis had a hand in his evil works, even if they were forced. Saddams best deal is to spend plenty af time interesting the Americans, before the Iraqis get to "wire him for sound".

And the appeals won't last long. And the other Arab countries will assist with dispatch. I'm guessing it will be beheading in Victory Square in the center of Bhagdad, four months after the Americans finish his interrogation (which will take another six months). So lets say the Saddams head, or his neck with the rest of the body twitching (if they hang him with a crane as he used to do to others) goes up to the crowds in the last couple of weeks in October of next year. Don't we have an election a couple of weeks later?

And if we get Osama, we can do a dual "You are there" from Kabul, with the only other thing left twitching in the wind... will be the Democrats...

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 07:13 PM

Be fair Gareth - you've seen the footage. Nobody is suggesting that they shouldn't show pictures of Saddam to demonstrate they had caught him. But showing him with the medic checking he still had his teeth, and whether he had fleas or not, that is another matter.

And why it matters isn't that it's rough on Saddam (big deal) - but rather that it undermines standards of behaviour which affect all captives, including those from our own countries. It's going to be harder to put on trial the bastards who do that kind of thing in future, because of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 07:20 PM

Claymore, you are a sick man, do you know that?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 07:33 PM

Claymore,

A public beheading of Saddam a month before the US election will not do yer guy any good at all... Quite the contrary... In spite of yer thirst fir blood here, the American people don't like grizzly capital punishment because it isn't nice...

A more possible scenero is an sraged attempted escape by Saddam where he is shot. But that probably won't happen either.

No, the most likely scenerio is where, inspite of teh Bush folks trying to make Saddam look like a menacing boogieman, he will be seen more as the pathetic creature that he is. And, my friend, is bad news fir yer guy especially if he can't find the guy who really had somehting to do with 9/11...

Meanwhile, Iraq is still a mess and will remain so and folks will continue die daily on both sides, and the bodies will continue to come home...

And the beat goes on...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 07:36 PM

Pinochet and the junta were never tried. No one was ever tried for the horrors of apartheid. So why the expectation that Saddam be tried?

It is the Americans who have Saddam, not the Iraqis. As a number of posters have pointed out, that is not a plus on the ground in Iraq, or the Middle East. Any trial by the Iraqis will be viewed in the Arab world as a trial put on by the American occupiers. Anyone who thinks this capture has any benefit beyond propaganda value in the US is crazy.

As a number of media whore pundits have already mentioned today, the intentionally humiliating photos of Saddam did not look like a man running an insurgent rebellion against American military might. He was captured because someone in him immediate circle in the area of his capture, wanted him in American custody.

Shouldn't we be asking why? The flippant, easy answer is they did it for the reward money, which may well be true.

It may also be true that the insurgents wanted him out of the way because he had become too much of a liability, because the manhunt was interfering with their waging of war against the American occupation force and it's allies. Or because a new leader wanted to take his place. Any number of scenarios.

But hey--I wouldn't claim victory in '04 for Bush based solely on this event, regardless of the powerful propaganda effect it will have. Bush will see a big bump in the polls. So what? Then it is back to the business at hand--like Halliburton ripping off the US taxpayers, and cutting corners on support for the troops in the field.

If the violence in Iraq ends, that would be terrific. But I for one don't believe the orchestrated violence is being carried out solely by Baathist loyalists, as the Bush regime keeps claiming. There are other forces at play in this insurgency, to be sure. How effectively they will be able to be in carrying on their attacks against the occupation remains to be seen.

As for Howard Dean being on his way out the door--since when do the Republicans decide the fate of Democratic candidates months in advance of elections? Puhleeze. Save your partisan Sunday dinner rants for your own peanut gallery at home.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 07:38 PM

From The Goon Show:

Bloodnok: I made them come to me on their knees - I hid in a drain!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 07:44 PM

Claymore, do you really believe that salvation lies in the Democrats not winning the next election (and the one after that, and the one after that, and...)? Are you that naive?

If so, and if Democratic supporters believe the opposite about the Republicans (which most of them do), then you have both fallen into the same trap.

Divide and conquer tactics are what have the American public hypnotized into an eternal and useless battle for superficial control of "the government" by one major party or the other, but it doesn't matter. The same large interests make use of both parties. The fact that the two parties have a somewhat different official "style" has precious little effect on content, but it does serve to help perpetuate the game.

The farce of your electoral politics is like the false front on an old Hollywood B-western set. Behind it is control by megacorporations, banks, and major financial players who play the rest of you all for suckers.

They own both of those parties, and they pick exactly who you get to vote for...on both sides.

And you can't do anything about it, short of armed revolution, so I am not surprised you exist in a state of denial and continue squabbling over the paltry differences between the two pathetic partisan choices you are normally offered at election time.

It's better than only one official party, but that's about all one can say in its defence. Never was so much put over on so many by so few.

I happen to prefer the Democrats (a bit) because I like their outer style better, but once in office they will serve the same powers behind the scenes that the Republicans do, and will simply change the trimmings on the tree a little in order to make it look like they are different.

It's a game. You play if you vote. You abstain if you don't. But you never win this game, unless you're one of the bosses at the top.

You also have elections (basically a puerile popularity contest in which both presidential candidates try to prove that they have bigger balls than the other guy)...elections that last about a YEAR!!! In Canada, our election campaigns last 6 weeks...and believe me, that is more than enough. The Presidential election is a whole lot of money wasted on a futile and phony endeavour, and he who has the most corporate backing wins the game, cos that's where the big money comes from.

Any 3rd party which tries to get started doesn't have a hope in hell, because the System will make sure of that...and they don't have the funding or media coverage. It's a closed shop. You either vote for the "Union" (Dems-Repubs) or you can stay home.

And that means that nothing really changes except the window-dressings.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 07:57 PM

Here is an excerpt of an interview with a local Iraqi exile, from today's Minneapolis Star Tribune, about Saddam's capture:

"A complex stew of emotions that included joy, disgust and personal humiliation washed over Abbas Mehdi at his Minnetonka home this morning as he watched television footage of the broken and bedraggled Saddam Hussein being examined for head lice by U.S. Army doctors.

Mehdi, an Iraqi-born professor at St. Cloud State University, hates Saddam and has devoted years of effort to his overthrow.

His own mixed feelings, which surprised Mehdi himself, made him want to caution U.S. officials to take care that the treatment of their high-profile captive not aggravate the sense of humiliation that many Iraqis feel about the situation in their country.

Mehdi said he felt "joy and relief" to see the hated dictator in custody. He felt disgust with Saddam for allowing himself to be captured after presenting himself all these years as the ultimate tough guy who would prefer death to the dishonor of captivity. Mehdi expressed confidence that many Iraqis -- Saddam supporters and haters alike -- will lose respect for Saddam for not killing himself in the moments before his capture. "Now he is not only a criminal, but a coward," Mehdi said.

But Mehdi also felt an unexpected personal sadness, that this man who has been the personification of Mehdi's homeland for many years was being prodded and displayed, as if this somehow symbolized how the whole country was being treated by its conquerors."

The truly cynical people are those who keep touting what a great thing Saddam's capture is for George W Bush's political future. They are many, but most of all the whores of the US mainstream media. The spin so far is to show how triumphant the Bush Americans are, how emasculated Howard Dean is, blah blah blah blah blah blah.

How can any American rejoice when the entire Iraq debacle is so obviously only about the American Republican party winning it all, and shaming the Iraqi people into submission so we can steal their oil?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST,Axis of Truth
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 08:02 PM

World leaders thrilled by news of Saddam's capture
LONDON (AP) — World leaders including the Iraq war's most prominent opponents welcomed Saddam Hussein's capture, saying it brought a long-awaited end to the career of a brutal dictator and could mark the beginning of peace in Iraq.

The U.S. military announced that a bearded Saddam offered no resistance when he was caught hiding in a tiny underground "spider hole" on a farm near his hometown of Tikrit, ending one of the most intense manhunts in history.

"Where his rule meant terror and division and brutality, let his capture bring about unity, reconciliation and peace," Prime Minister Tony Blair said. "Saddam is gone from power. He won't be coming back, that the Iraqi people now know and it is they who will decide his fate."

Blair braved intense domestic opposition to support the U.S.-led war that ousted Saddam in April, ostensibly for his production and stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction.

Thousands of U.S. forces also have not found any such weapons despite free run of the country for nearly eight months since the war ended.

Iraq's interim government has established a special tribunal to try Saddam and other members of his regime for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The United States still hasn't decided what to do with Saddam, though Blair said Saddam could be "tried in Iraqi courts for his crimes against the Iraqi people." Ahmad Chalabi, a member of Iraq's Governing Council, said Saddam would be tried.

In Yemen, Mohammed Abdel Qader Mohammadi, 50, said he was surprised Saddam did not fight his capture. "I expected him to resist or commit suicide before falling into American hands. He disappointed a lot of us, he's a coward."

The government of Jordan said Sunday it hoped that Saddam's capture would contribute to the dawning of a new era and help the Iraqi people restore law and order in their in their war-ravaged country.

"What the Jordanian government cares about is the safety and security of the Iraqi people and the restoration of political stability in that brotherly Arab nation," Asma Khader, a state minister and the government spokeswoman, told The Associated Press.

In downtown Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Ibrahim al-Khodir, 37, said Saddam should be put to death.

"This should have happened a long time ago," al-Khodir said. "Such a ruthless dictator and criminal should get the death penalty and he should be executed in front of the Iraqi people."

Iraq's war crimes tribunal would cover crimes committed from July 17, 1968 — the day Saddam's Baath Party came to power — until May 1, 2003 — the day President Bush declared major hostilities over. Saddam became president in 1979 but wielded vast influence starting from the early 1970s.

The Spanish government, another supporter of the war, also hailed the news.

"The time has come for him to pay for his crimes," said Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, an outspoken supporter of the war to oust Saddam, despite widespread opposition at home.

"He is responsible for the killing of millions of people over the last 30 years. He is a threat to his people and to the entire world," Aznar said.

France, which has had a rocky relationship with the United States since it led the opposition to the war, said the capture would help stabilize the country and lead to its sovereignty.

"It's a major event that should strongly contribute to democracy and stability in Iraq and allow the Iraqis to master their destiny," French President Jacques Chirac said in a statement.

U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq said he hoped Saddam's capture would help restore stability.

The United Nations gradually withdrew its international staff in Iraq after the Aug. 19 bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, which killed 22 people.

"We are hoping for any events on the ground in Iraq to help stabilize the situation there and to ensure and help with its long-term security," Haq said.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, another foe of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, congratulated President Bush.

"With much happiness I learned about the arrest of Saddam Hussein," Schroeder wrote in a letter to Bush released by the German government. "I congratulate you on this successful action."

In a separate statement, Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said the government hoped Saddam's capture would give impetus to the swift transfer of power to the Iraqi people.

"This important success offers the chance to speed up the hand over of sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government to increase stability in Iraq," Fischer said.

Japan applauded the news of Saddam's capture, as a video tape showing a bearded Saddam being examined by a doctor was broadcast on news channels throughout the region.

"The capture is a big step forward for the progress of security and the reconstruction of Iraq, and I welcome it," Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said, according to his spokesman Yu Kameoka.

"I strongly hope it will bring Iraqi people closer together to realize a free and democratic Iraq. Japan will do its best to support the reconstruction of Iraq," he said in comments released late Sunday.

News of Saddam's capture reverberated among the 500 delegates and other dignitaries at the opening session of Afghanistan's historic constitutional council, being held in Kabul.

Afghan Interior Minister Ali Ahmad Jalali said the arrest would help improve security in Afghanistan by dampening the ability of militant groups to recruit fighters here.

"What happens in Iraq is also something to do with the situation in Afghanistan. Since the war in Iraq, the terrorist organizations have tried to open a new front in Afghanistan, so any failure of terrorism in Iraq is going to effect the situation in Afghanistan," Jalali told The Associated Press.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 08:09 PM

It is much better to give a link to a long news story with just a quote to give an indication of what it is about.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 08:21 PM

Saddam has been captured, but it will make no difference to the real conflict..
Iraq seems to have been chosen as the setting for a titanic struggle .
Western " democracy" versus Islam.   The incarceration and probable execution of Saddam ,has left the road open for the Iranian inspired clerics to move into view and unite the opposition under the banner of Islam..
If America and her allies are victorious, the Islamic religion will be submerged in a grimy scum of Macdonalds wrappers,Coke cans,TVs, Motor cars,pollution,drugs and crass mindless ignorance.
If Islam forces the West to withdraw, we must prepare ourselves ,in the long term for the destruction of our materialistic society, which is frighteningly vulnerable to a handfull of determined fanatics,like those involved in 9/11.But im sure what the mullahs have in store for us will make 9/11 look like a picnic.
Well Mudcatters ,I know its a hard choice.....But what side are YOU on .....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 08:44 PM

Well, setting up that kind of conflict has been what the game plan of Al Qaida has been from the start.

So far it's been remarkably successful, thanks largely to the helpful rhetoric of George Bush - remember that great quote he gave at a crucial point about this being a "crusade". And there's that fundamentalist bigot General William Boykin.

It almost seems as if they must have set out to try and force together into alliance different traditions within the Islamic world who have been deeply opposed to each other.

If it comes to that, I doubt very much if the Americans have the appetite for a conflict that could last for generations. A retreat into isolation and a Fortress America seems much more likely, sooner or later.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 08:54 PM

Fortress America is no longer an option....
My point however was what woulds we mudcatters like the out come of the "struggle " to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 08:57 PM

Akenaton - In my opinion you are talking utter rubbish, & your use of colourful & unsubstaniated verbiage leaves me unimpressed, to say the least.

OTOH, thank you for not being another anonymous GUEST. I think your opinion is nonsense, but at least you are willing to offer me a name along with your thoughts. In future I can distinguish you from the faceless morass of moral cowards who seemingly don't have the courage of their convictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 09:19 PM

Raedwolf...Your a right laugh...Your last post ,containing references to "scumbags" and the need for "disembowelment" seemed to me, Colourful in the extreme.
Would you not agree that western economies are very vulnerable to attack by religious fanatics ,using Biological warfare, causing panic and lack of business confidence.   When the money goes the system goes...Ake
PS...I think you are taking yourself a bit too seriously regarding the "faceless morass"

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 09:28 PM

Gee, such cynicism .... This is an early Christmas present to ourselves - now maybe we can begin to bring our boys home so that their mothers will vote for Bush in eleven months. Hey, here's a thought: if Bush could capture Osama, well, wouldn't that just about clinch it for the Republicans in 2004?

Another observation: the reports have been saying that Iraqis have been celebrating Saddam's capture by squeezing off a few rounds into the air. Sounds like these people are fond of firearms, and their unencumbered behavior indicates a lack of prohibitive gun laws. Footage from back during the Gulf War showed Saddam doing the same thing in public before a crowd of thousands, during some sort of celebration.

Now, his heinous crimes against Iraqi people can't be defended, but if he was hated so badly, why didn't a real believer step up and bust a cap in his ass a long time ago? Could you imagine Bush giving a speech in public before thousands of U.S. citizens, many of whom are packing serious heat?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 10:18 PM

Ake - perhaps you should read a little more carefully. My reference was to "scumbag" - singular (Saddam himself). I said nothing whatsoever about the need for "disembowelment". Go back, read what I actually said, & don't quote out of context.

I agree that the western economy is vulnerable to being disturbed by a number of possible sources. Certainly Fundamentalist activity is one possible cause. Bringing the system down is another matter entirely, & ordinary human activity won't do it (totally screwing the global eco-system is another matter entirely...).

Now let's deal with "colourful" language shall we?

"religious fanatics" - your words, not mine.

"titanic struggle" - your words, not mine.

"...probable execution of Saddam" - no-one else has suggested that this is likely. I'll concede that some have said it's desirable. They're only voicing their own opinion. You imply that it's officially likely. Seemingly, no-one else yet believes there is any likelihood of this.

"...left the road open for the Iranian inspired clerics to move into view and unite the opposition under the banner of Islam." - utterly unsubstantiated statement. What grounds are there for for believing this will happen? Rise of Islam, perhaps. Iranian inspired? Do leave off!

"...submerged in a grimy scum of Macdonalds wrappers,Coke cans,TVs, Motor cars,pollution,drugs and crass mindless ignorance..." - well, no detectable bias, there then...

"...destruction... ...frighteningly vulnerable... ...a handfull of determined fanatics..." - that'll all be perfectly rational unemotive language then, will it?

I said nothing like this. And "faceless morass"? Again, you quote me completely out of context. I am specifically referring to all the spineless Guests here; so eager to argue their p-o-v, so reluctant to offer a name; who would seemingly be happier if tens of thousands were still dying under Saddam, rather than have gone to war for the wrong reasons (yes, I'm under no illusions as to THAT!!).

I respect the views of Bobert, Hawk, McGrath, et al, even though I disagree with them. I respect the fact that you're willing to put your name where you mouth is, even though everything you've said so far labels you as a damn fool. I've no respect at all for the cowards who hide behind Guestdom, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with my point of view.

Now take your head out of your backside & try reading what is actually posted, instead of what you want to see - you might learn something.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST,Al Natural Ali
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 10:24 PM

What integrity you exhibit, Raedwulf, when speaking so highly of your own opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 10:39 PM

I have zero problem with a twitching Saddam or Osama, especially since I keep a copy of the Sept 15th copy of Time/Life special, which had the photos of the innocent Americans jumping from the World Trade Towers, including a man and woman holding hands (lovers, married, or just friends giving each-other courage for the last few moments of life).

I think it is reasonable to believe the following things will happen:

Saddam will be interrogated, tried, convicted, and executed (by an Iraqi court).

So will Ossama (in Afganistan or perhaps Saudi Arabia, if he is not killed outright - I do believe he will fight).

Bush and Blair will claim credit for ridding the world of two very evil men, as they should.

The UN has realized it's impotence and will engage Bush and Blair (and the Coalition) in a dialog to join in the recovery effort.

Those nations who respect the primacy of the Coalition of the Willing will have a role in Iraq's recovery.

Iraq will recover and have a representative form of secular government, though not necessarily completely democratic, but friendly to the West.

North Korea has been turned into a bunch of monkeys with notes in their mouths by the Red Chinese who are facing a food shortage, and are so intertwined with American trade that they will brook no interferance with major grain deals with the US, righting our balance of trade, and crushing North Koreas pretentions as a nuclear power.

Those who daydream of a forced return to Fortress American do not understand the preemptive nature of our current defense structure, the interconnectiveness of world trade, and our unmatched ability to go anywhere in this world to eventually put a red laser dot on a bad guy's forehead...   

Bush and Blair will be reelected, with clear mandates to govern.

About 2006, as the Baby Boomers begin to retire, those Americans who have properly educated themselves to lead the job market, will have more jobs than they can fill, raising the overall wages of even the poorly prepared. This will raise the chances of yet another set of Republican leaders, as yet to be determined.

Many people in the MudCat will be very upset.

I will not...

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 10:52 PM

Claymore apparently confused this with the Total Crap thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 11:13 PM

Ditto, GUEST....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: harpgirl
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 12:55 AM

What I want to know is: How can the man be re-elected when he wasn't elected in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 02:30 AM

Little Hawk said it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 04:25 AM

Raedwolf ...Thanks for putting me right on the use of language,but Im a builder, not an author.
I think your wrong when you imply that people on Mudcat would prefer to see Saddam murdering his citizens, than the Americans being successful,but you must try and see the longer picture .Saddam was a cruel dictator ,but Islamic fundamentalism will be too strong an adversary for the West to handle,simply because it is so easy for those fundamentalists to subvert our economy. Although an evil man, Saddam was another bulwark against this spectre..
This is one occasion when the physicaly weak have the means to overcome the powerful.
Im sure your a clever man Raedwolf, but I think you need to aquire some manners in YOUR use of language.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 04:32 AM

Extremely good news, particularly for the people of Iraq. They now know that he cannot come back. The elections next year will not be overshadowed by the prospect of an re-emergence of the Ba'ath Party - that has now gone for good. The waiverers, the Iraqi's who still feared Saddam, and his possible return, can now make their decision openly with regard to what they want to see happen in Iraq.

What will happen to him? He will be tried in Iraq, by an Iraqi court, the trial will be public, the outcome of that trial is not in doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Hrothgar
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 05:25 AM

I put this in the other thread, too:

Getting down to reality:

The best political result for Bush is to have Sod 'em found guilty in September, and have lots and lots and lots of homecoming parades for the troops in October - or any time before the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

It's a bit trickier for little Johnny Howard - for various reasons he needs to have his welcome home parades for the troops earlier than that, but he doesn't want to be seen to be deserting his gallant US allies.

Decisions, decisions ...

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 05:31 AM

The verdict of the trial will not be in doubt - but will the sentence be death, or life inprisonment ? The latter would probably be my preference as it would probably show a degree of moral superiority over the sort of sentence that Saddam's government would have implemented. I would think that by now He has very few real supporters left and that the chances of bomb threats etc to get him released would not be that serious.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 05:55 AM

I remember well a little while ago - hearing a chap talkng who knew Saddam from his very early days. He was rubbishing all the talk of Saddam fighting to the end or of saving the last bullet for himself.

His opinion was that he was too cowardly for all of this and he predicted that Saddam would be found exactly as it finlly happened. Alive and well - ready to do any deal to sacrifice anything or anyone, in order to prolong his own miserable life...........

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 06:16 AM

Let's hope that the above fact, coupled with the degrading pictures (I'm sure that they were deliberately so) of his "medical examination" where they seemed to checking him for lice/fleas as well as taking a swab, will tend to lose him most of the little support he still has. It isn't as though he hasn't had time to plan/rehearse what he would do in such a situation.

His sons (and grandson) seemed to show more guts (literally) in their final showdown than he did in his arrest.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Mr Red
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 07:58 AM

Foolestroupe -

I think you hit paydirt there - just like Sadman - oh no he hit paybackdirt

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 08:33 AM

I have just seen that according to the solders that found him, who were speaking on TV today - his words were that he wished to negotiate.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 10:25 AM

Only inside the USA could anyone take a choice between the Democrats and the Republicans all that seriously...it's like a choice between Brezhnev's politburo backers and Chernenko's politburo backers would have been in the 70's..."Meet the new boss! Da-da-da-dum! Same as the old boss! Da-da-da-dum!"

And that is probably what will happen in Iraq too. In fact, it is happening on a local basis already. Old despot gone. New despot arrives.

If you call Saddam a "coward", then picture yourself having to hide in holes for 8 months, with a hundred thousand heavily armed people after you, being in all probability totally exhausted, and then being found by those people with nothing but a pistol in your hand.

What are you gonna do? Shoot yourself? Go down in a hail of bullets? How many of YOU would do that, and how many would just give it up at that point and surrender?

All this "coward" talk strikes me as pretty self-serving, because none of you has any idea what it would be like to be in that position. That's my opinion.

Which is not to say that I don't agree he was a vicious dictator. He was.

A lot of Germans were absolutely disgusted in '45 that Hitler went out by suicide, and called him "a coward" for so doing. His real sin was not cowardice, but a complete lack of empathy for what other people were going through on account of his actions.

When dictators lose out, it doesn't matter what they do or how they meet their demise. People call them "cowards". In so doing, they are usually not expressing anything much about the man himself, but rather venting their own hatred, that's all.

Convenient cheap shots. Call him immoral or amoral, call him a ruthless despot, but where do you figure he's a coward? Does a coward hold out in circumstances like that for that many months...or does that require real tenacity? How do tenacity and cowardice add up to be in the breast of the same person?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: DougR
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 10:47 AM

If it weren't so sad, it would be funny. For months many of you have been carping about the Bush administration and one of the points you made was that it couldn't even find Saddam. Well they did (the military) but now it is of no importance.
The U. S. military just rained on your parade!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 11:25 AM

That's the way partisan politics is, Doug. People always automatically look at everything through their own set of tinted, prejudiced glasses. You do it. The Democrats do it. You each delight in the other's misfortunes and take snide potshots at their successes. It's inevitable in a partisan system, which is a form of what Lincoln referred to as "a house divided"...a setup that cannot result in a meeting of minds but must forever have people at each other's throats.

It doesn't stand up very well, and it's a stupid, lousy way to organize a society.

I don't believe in it any more than I believe in the divine right of kings (another failed system) or the divine right of the Communist Party (another failed system).

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 11:53 AM

I think every sane individual is please that someone has apprehended that sack of s#it. The bottom line: the US went to "overthrow" the Hussein regime and find weapons of mass destruction. That was the ostensible objective. What wasn't stated was how long they would remain in Iraq. I think that is what people are concerned about. The military did not rain on my parade. I now hope that Hussein is tried as a war criminal and hanged until his neck stretches lots. I hope the US does not allow him to go the way of dictators like Amin and Pinochet. Talk about a Golden Handshake. So, there are two issues that should be separated in one's mind: The stated objective of the Iraq invasion AND the unstated agenda connected with the Iraq invasion. I was unhappy that Canada did not contribute to the first and pleased that we are not contributing to the second. It's a strange world we live in, Master Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 11:54 AM

I think it is damn important that Saddam was captured; I am sorry it reflects well on the Administration, since it was really the work of the US Army and their captured intell leakers from among Saddams circles. But, I would rather he have been captured than not, and I am glad he was taken alive. So if Bushie is going to suck a brownie point out of it, let him. It was very well done on the part of the soldiers on the ground -- the clues on the ground would have been easy to overlook.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 12:33 PM

What are you gonna do? Shoot yourself? Go down in a hail of bullets? How many of YOU would do that, and how many would just give it up at that point and surrender?

The point was that it was someone who knew Saddam well who was questioning Saddam's stated intentions. This man had exhorted others to fight to the last - but did not not do what he said he would do.

Does this make him a coward? I don't know or care too much about the word but it does appear to matter to those, like many Palistinians for example who think in those terms and have looked up to Saddam as a brave hero for appearing to support them and for standing up to the US.

It was not ever a very realistic position to hold - as it required ignoring the oppression and mass murder of Saddam's own countrymen but hopefully the reality of what the man really is - as revealed by the events of his capture - will enable a less idealised version of events to influence these folk in troubled lands?