 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Mr Red Date: 14 Dec 03 - 05:13 AM CNN are being cagey about the facts but they are trying to hint that a raid in Tikrit (who'd have guessed it?) was targeted on the man himself but no-one is confirming the idification. This changes the game slightly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: John MacKenzie Date: 14 Dec 03 - 05:52 AM If only! Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Little Robyn Date: 14 Dec 03 - 06:18 AM BBC World News (on NZ TV) are broadcasting right now that Saddam Hussein has been captured and Tony Blair has just confirmed it!!! Yeah!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Little Robyn Date: 14 Dec 03 - 06:32 AM Now they're saying they've done DNA testing and it is the man himself!!!! It's not a double!! (Don't ask me how they know - maybe they kept DNA samples from his sons bodies???) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST,cookieless Nickp Date: 14 Dec 03 - 06:35 AM Hmm, yes the BBC is reporting it - complete with false beard (lookout Santa!) - but apparently proven by a DNA test. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST Date: 14 Dec 03 - 10:41 AM What will the capture of Saddam Hussein change? It is an event with propaganda value for Bush/Blair, but it doesn't change the fact that Iraq is an ambivalent morass of chaos and skullduggery--or "quagmire" as we Yanks prefer to call it. Since Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on the US at home and abroad, it won't make any of us safer from terrorism (BTW, where is Osama bin Laden?) from Muslim extremists. And the "Road Map to Peace"? Well... Nope, not much will change with this news. Except now the Iraqi people can be sure that it is the increasingly brutal Anglo American occupation authorities that they live in fear of, rather than Saddam and the Baathists. I'm sure many Iraqis feel liberated. I'm sure many Iraqis feel the new boss is same as the old boss. Or as the cliche says "The more things change, the more they remain the same." Applicable here, I think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 14 Dec 03 - 10:46 AM Yup. Dubya will be sure to spin this as hard and as fast as he can for the next 11 months. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Bobert Date: 14 Dec 03 - 10:48 AM Well, danged.... Reckon Bush will dust off the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner and dress up like a soldier and prance around and beat on his chest... Not... Nope, Bush's PR folks aren't going to fall in that trap again... Actually, this weakens Bush's PR folks becuase it should put the focus back on Osoma bin Forgotten who is repromoted back to the position of Boogieman de' jour. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Morticia Date: 14 Dec 03 - 10:56 AM It's being presented here as "an end to all that insurrection nonsense" too....can't they see that the strength of feeling in Iraq is not necessarily centred on Saddam and this really is unlikely to change anything? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST,Blitzing Wolf Date: 14 Dec 03 - 10:59 AM It's a sad, sad day for the Bush and Blair hating denizens of Mudcatville; not to mention the courageous French, the noble Germans and the Saadam worshippers of Ramallah. Their brave hero of resistance to American hegemony, and the mass murderer of hundreds of thousands of innocent children, women and men, has been found cowering in a hole. Now while Mudcatters weep, the people of Iraq breathe a great sigh of relief. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Mrrzy Date: 14 Dec 03 - 11:00 AM This is the chance for the DEMOCRATS to get Saddam to testify about how he couldn't have done it all without the FIRST BUSH'S HELP! Let him testify against the Republicans...! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST Date: 14 Dec 03 - 11:01 AM Forgive the pun after his bloodless shotless surrender was described as woman like, but: "this was the "MOTHER of all surrenders" ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST,Frank Date: 14 Dec 03 - 11:02 AM Does anyone remember Noriega? He was set up in power by the US administation at the time and then subsequently captured. A big deal was made over that. Saddam, same thing. Does this look like a pattern? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Raedwulf Date: 14 Dec 03 - 11:07 AM I'm sure Bush will spin. Wouldn't you? Does that make this news anything other than an early seasonal gift for the whole world? Saddam was & is a scumbag of the first water. The fact that he's been caught can only be good news for everyone, & for the peoples of Iraq in particular. The real test now will be how the US administration reacts. What now needs to happen is for them to avoid any excessive use of, or even overt display of, force; & to take this as opportunity to begin reducing their presence (which is not necessarily the same as leaving any earlier) ASAP. They desperately need to reduce their profile in Iraq. The capture of Saddam ought to disembowel the resistance (which is not necessarily to say that it will). The US coalition now has a fabulous opportunity to improve their PR. And whilst we can all be cynical about PR & spin, it would be foolish to think that (if the opportunity is grasped) it will not make a profound difference to the present & future of Iraq. Here's hoping, but forgive me if there's a tiny little cynical voice in the back of my mind demanding "Let's wait & see..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 14 Dec 03 - 11:13 AM Guest, Blitzing Wolf, go find Landmine and salute Dubya all you want. The Noriega example is very accurate. They'll have to make room for a third in that prison wing, because Osama was ALSO in US pay for many years, fighting in Afghanistan against the Russians. They never learn. . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST Date: 14 Dec 03 - 11:15 AM Well now Wolfing Blitz, the Iraqis set up their own war crimes tribunal just a wee bit ago, and that august body is purportedly not controlled by the Anglo American occupation authorities. Any bets on the Americans handing Saddam over to his own people to be tried? No, I thought not. Oh, and I'm sure you'd agree that the Iraqis are the ones who deserve all credit for the capture of Saddam, as they are the ones who led the Americans to him, and allowed him to be captured without a shot being fired. Now if we could just get the Anglo American imperial regimes, which are responsible for millions of deaths of innocents around the world in the past 50 years, the world might truly become a safer, better place. Let's see, there were those incinerations of nearly a million Tokyo civilians in WWII, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, three million Vietnamese dead...what heroes we Americans be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Rapparee Date: 14 Dec 03 - 11:21 AM If they looked further in the hole where Saddam was taken they'd find Osama, too. That's 'cause "News of the World" said that they're married and even had photos of them, one with Saddam's head resting in Osama's lap and other of Saddam in his tutu. By the way, the beard wasn't fake -- but Saddam HAS shaved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Bobert Date: 14 Dec 03 - 11:25 AM Like I said above, I don't think they'll be any big splash from the Bush PR team because whatever they come up with will be undone by the report of the next Amrican casualty in Iraq... Saddam's capture doesn't de-quagmire Iraq... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Charley Noble Date: 14 Dec 03 - 12:02 PM Well, three cheers for his capture and now, I guess, the Bush Administration will have to conduct some kind of trial. I rather doubt that much will be made public except for the sentence. The trial itself will begin about October, the last month of the Bush Re-Election Campaign. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 14 Dec 03 - 12:05 PM I'm glad they got him! Saddam is an asshole, and has done little or no peace work in his many years of power. He's been opportunistic in the extreme, he's worked for the worst of American interest in the past, and he is no friend of democracy. That being said, the many thousands of civilians killed are not justified by the apprehension of a scared man hiding in a hole... and, this whole military approach to the 'world's' problems is the pinnical of hippocracy. Aren't you even a little bit glad they got him Bobert? hmmmmmmmmmm? ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Clinton Hammond Date: 14 Dec 03 - 12:11 PM I have to admit, I'm in the "So What" category... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST Date: 14 Dec 03 - 12:19 PM I don't think gladness or happiness is an appropriate response to the capture of Saddam for me as an American, actually. Saddam was our Iraqi despot after all, and the Anglo American campaign to depose him from power has resulted in far too many civilian casualties over the past decade. The result of him being deposed is that we are now directly ruling that country with an occupying army and increasingly hostile iron fist, and we have allied ourselves with the worst despots in the region (ie the Saudis, Ariel Sharon, Musharraf in Pakistan, etc) to wage this highly problematic, morally repugnant, illegal war on the peoples of the Middle East. That doesn't bring me a bit of joy, gladness, happiness or relief. Quite the opposite. Knowing the propaganda value of the sure to be very long, televised American tribunal against Sadaam and the other captured high ranking officials of his regime, sickens me. Why? Because I can't get the cost in human suffering over control of the oil resouces of the Middle East--what has driven this madness since the turn of the 20th century--out of my head. What's another deposed and despised dictator in an endless line of them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Art Thieme Date: 14 Dec 03 - 12:27 PM Is the timing part of a conspiracy??? Sadam is found in the Shire hiding in a hobbit hole just as Grima Wormtongue will be found and rooted out this Wednesday when Return Of The King opens. The parallels are all too uncomfortable for this old folkie. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Greg F. Date: 14 Dec 03 - 12:38 PM So What? indeed. No, most US voters don't remember Noriega. The majority of the few that do remember don't care. Ditto Pinochet, or the Contras, or Battista, or a thousand other examples... The capture of Saddam won't "disembowel the resistance" any more than getting rid of Dumbya would "disembowel" the Project for a New American Century neoconservative gang. And that should be "What's another deposed and despised AMERICAN GOVERNMENT CREATED AND SUPPORTED dictator in an endless line of them?" God Help America. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Dec 03 - 12:43 PM I think this is very nice for Saddam...just what the doctor ordered. After all, he has had to cower in one noisome hidey-hole after another for several months now, in daily fear of his life, eating sand and being assaulted by tiny insects, and getting really filthy! These are not the living conditions appropriate for a famous man and a former head of state. Now he will get a baath (sic), a shave, some clean clothes, 3 meals a day, a bed, and so on. Plus he gets to meet the World press again. Plus he gets to meet his worthy adversaries, the US military, and reminisce with them about what has become a legendary "search for the bad guy", even better than the old Pancho Villa one was. (Matter of fact, when Saddam is properly cleaned up he looks just like Pancho Villa.) With any luck, Saddam will be brought stateside and get to meet Manuel Noriega, someone with whom he has a great deal in common. With any further luck, Saddam, like Manuel, will find Jesus and convert to Christianity and get saved!!! This is a very good day for Saddam and for America. It's also a very good day for Al Queda, given the fact that they never liked Saddam one bit, and now he is out of the way permanently, which means they can legitimately assume leadership in liberating Iraq from the foreign crusader forces, a campaign which is well under way, but still in its earlier stages. This is all really cool, and I think we should join with Saddam, George Bush, Bin Laden, Tommy Franks, and all other involved parties and celebrate till sunup! Drinks all around!!! - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Don Firth Date: 14 Dec 03 - 12:43 PM Well, that's good. I almost expected Bush to act as if he had captured Saddam personally, but he didn't. Good speech, short and to the point, and although my BS detector was on full, the needle didn't waver. He quite rightly indicated that this didn't really change much other than to assure the Iraqi people, both pro and con, that Saddam wouldn't be. A few additional comments about continuing the war on terrorism. 'Smatter, Blitzing Wolf? Mange medicine not working? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST Date: 14 Dec 03 - 12:43 PM Art, your conspiracy theory is a bit of a stretch, especially considering that Saruman has been conveniently "disappeared" from "Return of the King"! If there is any conspiracy here, I'd look to the highly publicized announcement of an "independent" Iraqi war crimes tribunal on Wednesday, and the capture of Saddam on Saturday. BTW, are any of you aware that the Bush administration has begrudgingly agreed to allow former NATO commander and Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark to testify for the prosecution in the Kosovo war crimes tribunal--BUT! demanded that the UN allow the administration the right to edit the video and audio tapes of the sessions with Clark's testimony, before release to the public? Howze ya like dem apples? If the Bushites are so paranoid about losing the election next year that they are making these censorship demands of the UN to exert damage control over one of Bush's political opponents, just what lengths do you suppose the administration will go to in order to insure the American re-election script gets followed in a war crimes tribunal which will most certainly be held beyond the pale of international legal jurisdictions for such matters, hmmmmm? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Dec 03 - 12:46 PM I would think one likely consequence of this is that now there'll be much less to stop the various anti-occupation Iraqis getting together to fight the occupying forces and their friends. Up until now the existence of Saddam must have made that kind of thing tricky. While he was still "at liberty", it would have been hard building unity between people who loathed Saddam, people who supported him, and those Ba'athists who might have disliked him, but had a sort of loyalty to him. And there must have been a fear that, somehow, he might make a comeback, maybe with American backing. (After all, they backed Emperor Hirohito in Japan.) But with Saddam out of the way... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST Date: 14 Dec 03 - 12:58 PM McGrath, the NYT reports did mention that there was a very good chance that there is an internal struggle for power going on within and among the insurgents, and that the fingering of Saddam by the Iraqis may well have been a strategic move to get him out of the way, so some other leader who could operate much more effectively to lead the rebellion against the occupation. Saddam must have been an albatross around the neck of the leaders of the insurgency, whomever they are. That is my best wild ass guess as to why he was caught. He most certainly never would have been caught unless some Iraqi/Muslim insurgents hadn't wanted him caught. Now that the Americans have him, and will be spending their propaganda capital on his trial, there will be far fewer American troops crawling the countryside looking for him--they can literally crawl back to the palace in Baghdad and let Afghanistanization occur beyond the palace gates. It's not as if the American electorate gives a damn about Iraq or it's people, after all. We just want cheap gasoline, and for the terrorists not to kill us on our home turf. It's fine with us if they hit London or some far flung African or Middle East embassy. Just don't kill civilians on our soil, or jack the price of gasoline so high that it causes inflation to shoot up, and the inflated value of the home real estate market to collapse. Especially not before the 2004 election. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Bill D Date: 14 Dec 03 - 12:59 PM lordy, what a bunch of blather from a bunch of (mostly) anonymous, opinionated know-it-alls... I agree with Raedwulf, "let's wait and see" it was better to capture him than let him run free...we captured him: now we need to see if we can get any useful info from him and devise some SANE plan for justice that will both satisfy the Iraqis and the world. That won't be easy, judging from what I read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Dec 03 - 01:03 PM One thing to be grateful four is that they captured him. If they'd just killed him like his sons and gandson lots of people would never have believed it was him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Bobert Date: 14 Dec 03 - 01:04 PM ttr: I'm real glad they got the bum... Not only does it get one more badguy off the streets ('er out of the hole...) but it also will force Bush get back to the War on Terrorism.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Ebbie Date: 14 Dec 03 - 01:09 PM Why do I suspect that there will be a window of opportunity for someone to dispatch the man? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Peg Date: 14 Dec 03 - 01:09 PM sorry, but Grimal Wormtongue does not appear in Return of the King.... Oh and not to be nitpicky (Thomas!) but I have noticed that hardly anyone (not just on Mudcat) knows how to spell "hypocrisy." Spelling it with "acy" makes it look like it's somehow related to democracy...well, maybe it is. Can this really be one of those words people hear more than they see it in print? You can keep your unique spelling of "pinnacle" though cuz it's kinda cute... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST Date: 14 Dec 03 - 01:11 PM Oh--the other likely conspiracy scenario I forgot to mention is how convenient the timing is of Saddam's capture vis a vis the reports emerging this week about Cheney's boys price gouging the American taxpayers, and cynically cutting corners on feeding and guarding the troops on the frontline. BTW--why do you suppose American troops need private sector security guards, anyway? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Peace Date: 14 Dec 03 - 01:14 PM Saddam Hussein is a piece of garbage. I hope someone does 'dispatch' the sonuvabitch. After the trial for war crimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Mr Red Date: 14 Dec 03 - 01:26 PM Well, I expected a splash when I tossed that pebble but even I am surprised. Now a much smaller ripple but a good pedantic point - the capture was not shotless. A lot of weapons were seen and heard firing in typical Irqi rejoicing. They weren't firing at Allied forces, NOR hnded-over to those forces. Discuss. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST Date: 14 Dec 03 - 01:27 PM The convenient thing about the US regime changing every four years, is the US never has to be held accountable for their war crimes, for several reasons: 1. We have been the winners of the wars we fought in internationally, so we've controlled the war crimes tribunals. 2. There is a conspiracy among the thieves in the White House, ie that the first loyalty of government service at the highest levels of the executive and legislative branches, is loyalty to the status quo of our bureacratic rule as world superpower. This makes it impossible (as Robert MacNamara has proved again and again) for anyone to either admit that they committed war crimes, much less admitting fallibility on the part of the very fallible human men who have and will continue to ruin the world. 3. The men who engage in evil always believe that they are absolved of all guilt and shame for committing that evil, because they believe committing evil in the name of all that is good, is what is necessary for them to win. They rarely will make the public argument that they are morally right. They don't have to. They just have to assure their own people that committing evil is necessary for their side to win. The current Bush administration is quite masterful at this, because they are experts at appealing to the lowest instincts of human beings: fear, vengeance, racism, sexism, classism, religious bigotry, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Art Thieme Date: 14 Dec 03 - 01:30 PM THIS JUST IN: Scenario: Saddam decides to go into the mud hut to take a shit. While in there, thirty-five cents falls out of his pocket and goes into the hole. "DAMN" says Hussein as he pulls a five dollar bill out of his pocket and tosses it down there before jumping into the hole himself. Just then soldiers bust in the door yelling, "That's Saddam. Get him out of that hole". Topside again, they ask him why he tossed the five dollars into the foul outhouse. His answer: "You didn't think I was going down there for .35 cents did you???" Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 14 Dec 03 - 01:32 PM Thanks for the reality check there peg... you are certainly on the ball this morning... I'm delerious with the flu, and my spelling is indeed worse than usual... hard to imagine, isn't it? :^) On the other hand, dear and lovely peg... not even one word on content? ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Peace Date: 14 Dec 03 - 01:35 PM Art: If he really jumped into the shit, how could anyone have known it was him? The camouflage couldn't have been better--or more apt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: DougR Date: 14 Dec 03 - 01:36 PM Ebbie: perhaps because you appear to me to be a natural born cynic. This was exceptionally good news, and those of you who believe that it isn't are just not tuned in IMO. Bush said the right things and he said them well. So did Tony Blair. Neither of them claimed victory, and Bush particularly, stated that the violence will continue in Iraq. I think it is possible, though, that this may be the beginning of less violence. Next, Osama! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST Date: 14 Dec 03 - 02:05 PM It is true, DougR, that many of us are not in tune with the Great Republican zeitgeist. And thank god for that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Gareth Date: 14 Dec 03 - 02:11 PM Well, on the asumption that you might trust the BBC to reprt acuratley, here are Blair's comments, Not the point on "the Iraqui People" Click 'Ere Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: CarolC Date: 14 Dec 03 - 02:16 PM I agree with those who suggest that going after the puppets doesn't accomplish anything substantial or beneficial for humanity in the long run. In order for that to happen, it's the string-pullers who will have to be stopped. Am I happy that Saddam has been captured? Maybe, if it really does make life better for the Iraqis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Dec 03 - 02:20 PM "Grima Wormtongue does not appear in Return of the King...." Well, I haven't seen the film, but he's in the book all right. I hope they haven't cut the Scouring of the Shire part out of the movie. .......................... "I think it is possible, though, that this may be the beginning of less violence." True enough, and let's hope that's true - but it is also possible that it will be the beginning of even greater violence. Noone is suggesting that Saddam in his cellar was actually in charge of anything - the question is whether his capture is going to make attacks on the occupation forces and their allies less likely or more likely. I suspect that it could in fact even make it easier to set up some kind of umbrella "Iraqi Liberation Front". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Ebbie Date: 14 Dec 03 - 02:38 PM DougR, I hope you are right. (But were you right about whether or not Bush would invade Iraq? hmmmm?) If the capture of Saddam disheartens his loyalists enough so that they will swear off further resistance it will be a good thing. I doubt it, however. Have you read about the vengeance that is being wreaked by the various factions upon each other? Does anyone, including DougR, actually envision a happy ending to the carnage? It seems to me that this administration hasn't the slightest understanding of what they have unleashed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST Date: 14 Dec 03 - 02:56 PM Not only do they not have the slightest understanding of what they have unleashed, they also don't care what they have unleashed. All they care about it is money and power, not ending carnage--particularly the carnage of their own making that has left them standing knee deep in blood. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: kendall Date: 14 Dec 03 - 02:58 PM In a word. CIVIL WAR. That's what has been unleashed. Precedent? Yugoslavia. Tito held all those ethnic gangs together with an iron fist, but when he died all hell broke loose, and the same thing is going to happen in Iraq. Another Kosovo. I'm glad Saddam is gone, but I wonder how he raised that much beard in so short a time? Seriously, now Bush has to get on with the important work...FIND BIN LADEN. Would he dare to create another diversion to avoid his failure to find the real culprit? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Peace Date: 14 Dec 03 - 03:03 PM The Bush administration has unleashed the dogs of war. There has seldom been a happy ending to war. Families weep for their lost ones, both soldier and civilian, and the vultures feast on the remains--feathered, political and corporate. |
|
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? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Dec 03 - 01:19 PM The thing about Saddam in an open trial is that he knows an awful lot about stuff that would be very embarrassing to important people in the US administration (and in other countries). So I'd predict either some kind of Soviet-style show trial, or a deal in which he keeps schtum about some stuff, in return for not being executed. Or perhaps he gets suicided while awaiting trial. 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. Well, I'm glad they didn't go in guns blazing and give him what coudl have been presented as a hero's death. That showed a kind of professionalism which is not always evident in situations like that. But I would have thought that it wasn't a question of looking for clues - their informants seem to have been pretty specific in fingering Saddam. Interesting to speculate whether this was just a question of reward money, or whether there's more to it than that. Perhaps some resistance leader who wanted Saddam out of the way, either to make it easier to get a more effective war going, or conceivably in thenhope of being able to cut some kind of deal, and maybe emerge in time as the Strong Man who holds Iraq together with the tacit or explicit backing of the USA. Like Saddam when the CIA backed the coup that brought him to power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST Date: 15 Dec 03 - 01:20 PM Doesn't the Army work for their Commander-in-Chief? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Peace Date: 15 Dec 03 - 01:34 PM . . . who in turn works for the American people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Ebbie Date: 15 Dec 03 - 01:45 PM Quoting Bush: "America is more secure as the result of his capture," he added later. In what way is that true? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Amos Date: 15 Dec 03 - 01:54 PM Ebbie: It directly relieves a source of trepidation among the Iraqis and makes it more likely they will be able to evolve into a self-governing nation, or so I believe; and in consequence it reduces the hot spots from which future attacks could arrive unexpectedly. That's the theory, anyway. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Peace Date: 15 Dec 03 - 02:00 PM Saddam Hussein had a tight control over the Iraqi people. He kept that control by the exercise of terror through the auspice of his 'security' forces. Essentially, the application of terror. With him captured, the people can begin to envision a future without him: a future without knocks on the door at 3:00 am. Now, whether they can envision a future without an army of occupation is another matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Dec 03 - 02:05 PM Though equally possible the other way round. Here's an interesting article from an anti-Saddam Iraqi who opposes the occupation: Resistance to occupation will grow -- "...Saddam's surrender is likely to embolden the political forces in Iraq which, until now, feared that a call for the immediate end to the occupation might help Saddam return to power... Now that Saddam is no longer a bogeyman to scare the people with, trade union and other mass opposition is likely to increase, complementing and coalescing with the armed opposition." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Gareth Date: 15 Dec 03 - 02:11 PM An interesting view point Kevin, but hardley objective. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Amos Date: 15 Dec 03 - 02:31 PM There is no such thing as objective speculation about the consequences of an event, in any case. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Dec 03 - 02:32 PM "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?" No, not necessarily...it just makes him an absolutely typical wartime politician and resistance leader. They always say: "fight to the last". And really, what else would they say? To do otherwise would be ridiculous, under the circumstances. What did Winston Churchill say: "We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them in the streets"...etc, etc, etc. What did Hitler and Stalin say? Same sort of thing exactly. It's standard wartime rhetoric for those in a desperate circumstance, who wish to shore up morale among the fighting troops. Given the fact that Saddam was lying prone in a coffin-like, dark little crawl space, I hardly think it was necessary for the American troops to open fire on him when they found him...or very feasible for him to do anything but surrender or shoot himself. His natural desire for survival clearly was stronger than his desire for instant martyrdom...and that would be typical of most people, whether or not they were "cowards" in someone else's opinion. His capture is good news for almost everyone except the remnants of the Baath Party and the various ordinary Arabs and Palestinians who looked to him as a sort of folk hero for resisting the USA (and, by implication, Israel). Oh, and it's rather bad news for the Democrats, of course! I bet they're glad it didn't happen 2 weeks before the forthcoming 2004 election. The Republicans will probably schedule his show trail (or its conclusion) for around about then, if they can arrange it. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Ebbie Date: 15 Dec 03 - 03:00 PM I have never understood why a killer resists his own annihilation. Surely if you are willing to kill others, you accept the concept of being killed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST Date: 15 Dec 03 - 03:26 PM " . . . he knows an awful lot about stuff that would be very embarrassing to important people in the US administration (and in other countries). " If you know that, he should have the right to remain silent and you should testify about it. Besides, why should he testify that "I gassed civilians in my own country because powerful and unethical people in the American government gave me the capacity to do so"? To what issue would that be material? -guest |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 15 Dec 03 - 04:24 PM Smear the dear!, our guest will cheer And reign he will, with clouds of fear He can not take an open mind And his mistake, an average bind Turning questions into doubt Climb the best ones just to shout But louder dost the truth not make And meaner rust a no good flake This stupid war, amidst the shouting An oil d'up whore, distaction touting For while we fret in disarray Our freedom's lost another say With Christians shouting "Eye for eye!" A business outing abhores our 'why'? As 'no bid' contracts bleed the wounds For inside dealers reap the boon'ds Alack alas, and meanwhile states Are locked out fast, the federal gates Domestic products, you and I Work to buy, consume and die... So pointless bickers, serve us not When honor dickers, souls do rot Turn our visions more to caring And fall not for a coward's daring Dipomacy would serve us rights And bring back day from hellish knights When war is groundless, billions cringe Who might have found US freedoms fringe Sad it is, our lost intentions Without show biz, we've no inventions Like peace for all, and equal standing Were dreams too tall for corporate banding ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Peace Date: 15 Dec 03 - 04:48 PM Thomas the Rhymer: I have a question I've wanted to ask for a while now: Have you ever read the book "Mila 18" by Leon Uris? If you have, you will know why I'm asking. Brucie (not Bruce). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST,Louie the Lurcher Date: 15 Dec 03 - 05:28 PM I have not read it, and I am curious now. If I do read it, will I be able to churn out poetry as good as Thomas's on a regular basis? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 15 Dec 03 - 05:28 PM Hi 'Not Bruce'... Nope, and uhhh... since I'm not going to be reading another book by Leon for some long time to come, would you mind letting me in on the 'big secret'? Thanks a bunch! ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Peace Date: 15 Dec 03 - 10:49 PM There was a character named Nathan in the book. He often put historical events into rhyme. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: The Shambles Date: 16 Dec 03 - 02:20 AM What did Winston Churchill say: "We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them in the streets"...etc, etc, etc. What did Hitler and Stalin say? Same sort of thing exactly. It's standard wartime rhetoric for those in a desperate circumstance, who wish to shore up morale among the fighting troops. Saddam was a leader who became a leader, not because of his policies or his politics but because he was an assasin. He kept power by being more ruthless than his rivals and building up an image of invincibility in which being seen in public carrying guns and being ready to use them was just part of......Comparisons with the rhetoric of other leaders should be viewed in this light as must the practical actions of others. Just yesterday in Iraq there were those who sadly were prepared to sacrifice their own lives in suicide attacks against the West - whilst Saddam with his $175.000 travel expenses - stolen from his own people is talking to the West - just to save his own skin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 16 Dec 03 - 02:56 AM MGOH, "Well, I'm glad they didn't go in guns blazing and give him what coudl have been presented as a hero's death. That showed a kind of professionalism which is not always evident in situations like that. But I would have thought that it wasn't a question of looking for clues - their informants seem to have been pretty specific in fingering Saddam." All reports to date regarding the pinpointing of likely locations and in this particular sweep, there were two sites, are that it involved some painstaking work on the part of US Army intelligence analysts picking out fragments of information from around 25 people. I do not believe that his hiding place was deliberately given away by any one person or persons. On what takes over regarding the government of Iraq, why do you automatically assume it will be one person? Either another Saddam or Tito like figure. With explicit backing of the US? "Like Saddam when the CIA backed the coup that brought him to power." I think you will find Kevin that the coup that the CIA backed was the one that brought the Ba'athists to power in Iraq - not Saddam Hussein. That coup he organised himself within the Ba'athist Party some years later - he needed no help from outside to accomplish that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Dec 03 - 06:10 AM "An interesting view point Kevin, but hardly objective." Well, I'm with Amos in thinking that "objective" isn't a relevant word in this context - I gave the link to the article because I thin it is interesting. It also feels plausible, but we'll have to wait and see. ................ And Teribus, I know the reports have played up the idea that finding Saddam was all down to clever detective work by the troops on the ground. I'm sceptical about that actually being the case, that's all, and that isn't in any way to disparage the people who were doing it. The most remarkable thing is that they didn't chuck a grenade down the hole, and that to me is a strong hint that they knew he was down there. I'm not making assumptions about a Strong Man taking over, just that that is very much a possibility in the light of what has happened in the past, and there are undoubtedly people who would like it to happen (including those who might see themselves as that Strong Man). As for the question whether there was any CIA involvement in the second coup, that's not the kind of thing we can possibly know about -but there definitely was in the first coup, which was an essential stage in the rise of Saddam. The point is, we're just speculating on the outside. Whatever the truth is, it is always a fair estimate that there are some important things being concealed from us by our rulers. That's just how it is, and always has been. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 16 Dec 03 - 09:16 AM Kevin, "As for the question whether there was any CIA involvement in the second coup, that's not the kind of thing we can possibly know about -but there definitely was in the first coup, which was an essential stage in the rise of Saddam." Let's split that into two parts as you yourself have done: "As for the question whether there was any CIA involvement in the second coup, that's not the kind of thing we can possibly know about" If that was the case Kevin and you must have known about it at the time of writing. Why did you state as an example - "Like Saddam when the CIA backed the coup that brought him to power" The coup (bloodless) that Kevin was referring to was in 1968, Saddam seized control of the Ba'ath Party in 1979. They say a week is a long time in politics - in which case eleven years must be considered a bloody eternity. Now the second part, the wriggle: "but there definitely was in the first coup, which was an essential stage in the rise of Saddam." And every other bugger in the Iraqi Ba'ath Party - Saddam no more, or less, than anybody else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 03 - 09:29 AM As I have pointed out on another thread, the Bush folks are quite happy to have the live version of Saddam so they can maipulate trial dates, testamony, etc, to benefit their '04 campaign stategy. That's why they shaved him. A dirty, unshaven and pathetic looking Saddam has no "Boogieman" value to speak of... As fir the "professionalism" it would seem to be situational. Look how they handled Saddam's sons.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 03 - 09:34 AM ttr: Opps... Sorry my friend... Great piece of writing... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: CarolC Date: 16 Dec 03 - 10:22 AM 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). --Claymore And just what does the tragedy of 9/11 have to do with Saddam? (Here's a little hint for you - the answer is nothing) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Gareth Date: 16 Dec 03 - 10:40 AM Meanswhile - News just in. By Dan THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer DALLAS, Texas - In a surprise move, the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) announced a sudden push from the White House to be the first nation to land a team on Mars. Originally not scheduled until the year 2020, NASA spokeswoman Jari James said a senior official from the White House contacted NASA this morning, and discussed the feasibility of funding $13.4 billion in a drive to be able to place a team of people on the surface of the planet Mars by the end of this decade. NASA officials were stunned when the White House did not blink at the proposed figure, indeed, said quite simply "Money is not a problem." It has been a dream for many Americans to put men into space, but with the current economic climate it was thought that all future space explorations were put on a back burner. But with a single phone call, hope has blossomed for millions of people around the world, to see mankind step upon another planet in the solar system. The White House had a press conference after the announcement was made, and reporters asked why the sudden interest in space? "Was it because of a new space race starting with the China?" a reporter from Newsweek asked. "No," said the spokesperson from the White House, "it's because of the situation in Iraq. Now that we have Saddam Hussein in custody, we need a place to try him fairly." More news to follow... NB: This is a joke. It was written by Dan Thompson. Email him at: roger.redundant.roger@verizon.net and please credit him with the piece if you forward it. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Dec 03 - 11:02 AM Without the first coup there would have been no second coup and no Saddam. And there doesn't seem to have been any evidence that the USA - or for that matter the USSR - were in any way concerned about Saddam taking power and purging any genuinely Socialist elements in the Ba'ath Party. He certainly had a great deal of help later - more epecially in support of his aggression against his neighbours in Iran. The point is that he was a clear example of the horrible things that are invitred by a policy of "my enemy's enemy is my friend". Osam Bin Laden and co are another example. Hitler's rise owed a lot to that kind of thinking for that matter. And it would be only too easy for it to happen again, and it is only too likely that there are people working to achieve that kind of outcome. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Dec 03 - 11:04 AM Incidentally I don't think anyone has congratulated Mr Red on rather a good bit of word play title of the thread he started. More especially " Iraqnophobia". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 16 Dec 03 - 11:07 AM But Bobert, from your earlier statements weren't they going to save announcing his capture until just before the up-coming elections? The "they" I am referring to of course are those cunning, manipulative, opportunist, evil Republicans - Ha! Ha! bloody Ha! Now that recent events have come to light, ol Bobert's had to cross that one of his list of failed predictions - mind you Bobert it would be absolutely great if they turned up with Osama bin Laden just before those elections. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Dec 03 - 11:11 AM Yes, that was an inspired bit of humour, if ever I've heard one. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 16 Dec 03 - 11:22 AM Kevin regarding your post of 16 Dec 03 - 11:02 AM Your first paragraph relating to aid received by Saddam in support of his aggression against his neighbours in Iran. Making that point is all well and good provided that it is put in context and inferences made encompass all those who provided aid to Iraq. One minor correction however Kevin, aid was given by a host of countries not to support Saddam's aggression against Iran, but to support the defence of Iraq, if you doubt that explain the timing of that aid. Your second paragraph refers to times past, but completely ignores the realities of the "Cold War" and bi-polar geo-politics at play in with regard to the middle-east in particular. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Gareth Date: 16 Dec 03 - 12:27 PM Or as Kissinger (SP?) was reputed to have said over the Iraq/Iran war, "it's a pity that both sides don't loose". Kevin, I don't follow your logic on CIA support for SH in the past. And again I fail to understand the stated logic of a vocal minority of 'Catters in that as SH was America's creation America had no right to remove SH - I think Clinton had something to say on that. He's gone, and with luck should face a reasonably fair trial. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Peace Date: 16 Dec 03 - 12:42 PM The US supported Iraq as a buffer/balance against Iran. That was in a time when the USSR was hoping for land access to the Indian Ocean. Need to land troops somewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 03 - 01:14 PM Yo, T-Bird, It's hard to keep up with Bush's PR tricksters these days. Shoot he's spendin' a lot of tax payers dough on 'em and they certainly have the advantage because of the secret nature in which this administration operates... But it was a stroke of genius on their part. Knock Dean off the cover of Time magazine and parade a string of witnesses to testafy about Saddam's crimes in trials that probably will be going on about the same time as the '04 election... One thing fir sure... He's got one heck of a PR team... My hat's off to them even if they do represent an evil, anti-human, anti-earth gang of liars, theives and crooks... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Mr Red Date: 16 Dec 03 - 04:40 PM Little Hawk - there ain't nothing wrong with tinted glasses - mine are red (both of them) and it makes people smile and want to try them on. It brings people together. Of course the metaphorical kind are kinda hard to make work in the same way but YOU GOTTA TRY. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Dec 03 - 04:48 PM Gareth, the point I was making in relation to the CIA involvenent in the past - which is a term I use loosely here, as shorthand for the US Government - was that, in the light of past history, it would be as well to keep in mind the possibility that, in time, a new Strong Man will emerge in Iraq, with this being favoured by the US Government, as a way of keeping the lid on things. Moreover the person who would end up on top is more likely than not to be involved in the organisation of oppositionto to the occupation. That's how these kind of things work in empires trying to withdraw from direct rule. For anyone like that, Saddam's elimination would be necessary, so perhaps it was someone like that who fingered him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: akenaton Date: 16 Dec 03 - 05:05 PM McGrath I very much agree with your analysis of the "state of play" in Iraq....I also think that the capture of Saddam could make things even more difficult for the coalition. Although the Shi'ites seem to be sitting on the fence at the moment,the reason they were oppressed by Saddam,was the power wielded by their clergy....and with Saddam out of the way ,who knows what will happen..Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Raedwulf Date: 16 Dec 03 - 07:46 PM Without the first coup there would have been no second coup and no Saddam. This is disingenuous at best, McG. The point that Teribus makes is that any of several candidates could have made capital out of this. If you had said that "the first 1917 revolution gave Kerensky the opportunity to establish his powerbase" you would have been wrong. Nevertheless, the first 1917 revolution did create the climate in which Lenin could succeed. If you want to suggest that Saddam's 1979 coup was directly attributable to America, offer concrete evidence. Otherwise you're merely muckraking without substantiation. "Hitler's rise owed a lot to that kind of thinking for that matter. And it would be only too easy for it to happen again, and it is only too likely that there are people working to achieve that kind of outcome. " This also is arguable. It is possible to lay direct blame for Hitler upon the unreasonable terms of the Versaille Treaty. Any number of individuals could have made capital out of this, Hitler was the one that was the most succesful. It could have been any of many. Moreover, if the rise of Hitler was inevitably determined by history & human nature, then the US cannot be blamed for the future of Iraq. Which is it, Kevin? I won't dispute that there is something nasty in store, but I'll wait until it happens before I start trying to identify the culprits! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 03 - 08:53 PM Well, one thing fir sure is that the US isn't going to get the government they want in Iraq.... Think Ayatollah Ali Sistani here... Think Bush needs to do more drug testing of his advisors... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: DougR Date: 16 Dec 03 - 09:56 PM Bobert: would you clarify something for me? What do you REALLY think of Bush's team of advisors? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST,pdc Date: 16 Dec 03 - 10:20 PM Bush doesn't have a team of advisers -- he has owners. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 03 - 10:39 PM Well, Dougie, Bush's advisors are probablt the biggest concern to the panet, as we know it. Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz and Rihard Pearle are all way, way, way outside of the mainstream. These three guys are absolute flaming radicals. So conservsative that they almost touch the flaming radical on the left. They see the US as a world super power that needs to take on every danged situation (that involves resources) in the world. As a conservative, Doug, you should have some reseravtions about their activist foriegn policy. If Bill Clinton had taken it upon himself to guess who might be oput to get us and "whack' 'em you would have been up in arms.... Then you have these other folks who are equally dangerous. Donnie Rumsfeld is just a big stupid bully. He hates Colin Powell and has had Georgie demote Powell to porch Negro. He has said the most embarassing things about, awww, just pick a topic. Take the vases that we walking out of the museums in Irag. Henny Penny, you seen one danged vase and you've seen them all... That'sd like saying, after seeing the Mona Lisa, "Ahhh, ye seen one danged oil painting and you've seen them all!" Stupid remarl made by a guy who only thinks in terms of military solutions to every danged problem in the universe. Then there's the terribly inept Condi Rice who satrted the "Mushrrom" lie and probably more lies that one can actually pin on her... Yeah, Doug, these are the folks that your guy has surrounded himself with and now you've got 9/11 and a lot more crap on your hands that wouldn't have happened if daddy's Supreme Court hadn't decided to stop the vote counting... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST,Frank Date: 17 Dec 03 - 05:18 PM "If you want to suggest that Saddam's 1979 coup was directly attributable to America, offer concrete evidence. Otherwise you're merely muckraking without substantiation." Apparently the Radical Right Wing Revisionist history is that it didn't happen. They ignore the arms for hostages deal under Reagan and Bush and that America did supply WMD's to Iraq as a deterrent to Iran. It's now in the the history books. Any substantiation for a statement amoung the Radical Right Wing like this would only be accepted if it came from the Heritage Foundation or the Washington Times. Denial,denial. Or as they used to say as a euphemism for lying under Reagan, "plausible deniability". Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: Bobert Date: 17 Dec 03 - 05:43 PM Well, Frank, as an interesting side bar to Saddam being captured an possibly tried is that the real story might find its way from under the carpet. "Mr. Hussein. Did you gas anyone and if so where'd you get the gas?" See where I'm going with this one? Could get very interesting. Yep, very interesting... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Dec 03 - 06:02 PM "...the first 1917 revolution gave Kerensky the opportunity to establish his powerbase" Actually I'd thought of saying something close to that, but significantly different, and pointing out that people who backed Lenin arguably carried some responsibility for Stalin's rise to power from his base in Lenin's party. There were all kinds of reasons for Hitler getting control, but one of them undoubtedly was people thinking in terms of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" - and not looking too closely at who some of his enemies actually were. And that was certainly the case with Saddam and Bin Laden more recently, and explains the backing they had from people who would rather that this was forgotten. (Of course this is a way of thinking that occurs among left-wingers every bit as much as on the right.) And I said nothing about anything being inevitable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 17 Dec 03 - 06:36 PM Saw a Tv doc in Aus here recently - an ex-cia guy said that under Bush's dad, the current bunch of "advisors in power" were referred to as "the crazies". Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 18 Dec 03 - 02:29 AM Frank - "America did supply WMD's to Iraq as a deterrent to Iran" - evidence please, the aid given was all fairly well documented. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured? From: DougR Date: 18 Dec 03 - 11:54 AM Robin: I'm sure you took into account that said ex-CIA person might have had his own axe to grind when you viewed that documentary, right? DougR |
