BS: They got saddam

Subject: BS: They got saddam
From: Cllr
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 11:37 AM

Oh well here is another Iraq thread,Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 11:46 AM

Maybe not. We could always ask the clones to consolidate it with the other active thread on the capture.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 12:37 PM

Like the many cowards we see on the news these days, he murdered unarmed people for kicks.

They should hang him in a cage in the market place of Bagdad and let the people stone hime to pulp/fertilizer. Then pour him down the sewer!

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 12:44 PM

like many cowards we see on Mudcat, the ones with the most extreme ideas choose to be anonymous.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 12:49 PM

Why start another thread when there's one going already?

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: JedMarum
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 12:59 PM

I have three things to say:

Thank God!
Thank God!
Thank God!

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 01:04 PM

I doubt "God" had anything to do with the tedious intelligence gathering that ferreted out enough info to find that little hole in the ground. (Nor did GW Bush)

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 01:06 PM

And yet again the Geneva Convention rules are kicked out of the way as a prisoner of war is shown on TV, in direct contravention of those conventions.

Undoubtedly there will now be a chorus of "well, *he* did worse things....", but surely the point of decency is not that you show it only to those who give you the same courtesy, but that it is required of you in every case.

This is a bad thing for America - not just breaking the Geneva Conventions again, but also the capture. From being a scary bogeyman, Saddam has now been reduced to a frightened, disshevelled old man.

What happens now will have a big effect on America's future.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 01:06 PM

(boy I feel cynical today!...I'm glad Saddam is caught, but gol-lee!)

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: DougR
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 01:22 PM

GUEST JTT: What a load of horse pucky.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Peace
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 01:24 PM

Maybe the Bush administration will hire him as an advisor.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 01:25 PM

The only way the US can manage this whole thing without a lot of speculation, innuendo etc. coming down is by turning Saddam over to an Iraqi court of law and letting them deal with him. Any bets on the chances of that happening?

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 01:30 PM

DougR--correction:

The Bush administration believes that international law is a bunch of horse pucky. That doesn't mean that international law is a bunch of horse pucky, only that the Bush administration believes it is above the law--the law of the US, and international law.

And it's a fine mess they've gotten us in as a result of it.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 02:07 PM

They never had shots like that of Goebbels and Goering and the rest of that shower.

That TV footage of pictures of them looking in Saddam's mouth and checking his hair for fleas - they really aren't the kind of thing you expect from civilised captors. And saying that isn't anything to do with "be nice to poor old Saddam", it's to do with expecting the captors to behave in a dignified and appropriate way.

And they were pretty clearly in contravention of rules which have been signed up to by the USA in a very solemn and binding way.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 02:12 PM

Everyone in the world except the white US middle class knows that no US government agreement or treaty is worth the paper it is written on. The list of treaties and agreements abrogated by the US is stunning long...

Just ask the now decimated Native American population of North America. Or the signatory parties to the nuclear treaties. Or the countries who ratified Kyoto...

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 02:43 PM

They never had shots like that of Goebbels and Goering and the rest of that shower.

Come off it, McGrath. In 1945, it wasn't the case that 98% of the western world owned a TV, nor that the power of that particular medium was recognised for what it was/is.

I wasn't around in '45, but I betcha that the capture of the highest rankers of the defeated hierarchy then was announced in just about 100% of the public media, in reportage appropriate to said media & the times. Just like today. The world has changed, & had 1945 happened now, I doubt there would have been much difference 'twixt the reportage of the capture of the Nazis or the Ba'athists.

Trying to score a cheap point by such a false parallel is beneath your powers of argument, McG, & I'm disappointed in you!

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 02:49 PM

Other than that, I side with Bill D - I have no respect for the opinions of people that are too craven to admit their own identity.

Isn't amazing how we hardly ever see the name of Mr/Ms/Mrs Anonymous in ordinary Mudcat threads, but the moment something controversial pops up, they spring up like toadstools with the "courage" of their convictions...

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: kendall
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 03:02 PM

I predict civil war in Iraq, just as it was in Yugoslavia after Tito died.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Louie Roy
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 03:02 PM

I agree with Raedwulf and Bill D if you don't have the guts to identify yourself in my opinion we don't need your comment.I am very happy that he was captured and I'm sure that all the service men and women whether they are in Iraq or somewhere else in the world they too are very happy and relieved Louie Roy

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 03:06 PM

Raedwulf, it is true that McGrath is guilty of drawing a false parallel (the third Geneva Convention was signed in 1949, so couldn't be considered relevant to this circumstance), as you have astutely noted.

Perhaps we should draw your attention to more recent, relevant examples.

When five U.S. soldiers captured by Iraqi forces were shown on videotape broadcast by al-Jazeera on March 23, looking dazed and fearful, the Bush administration went ballistic, immediately invoking the Geneva Conventions, and demanding that Iraq act in accordance with those conventions in its treatment of the American prisoners.

Iraqi POW's are not the only ones who have been filmed or photographed in captivity. U.S. networks have also shown footage of Iraqi soldiers surrendering or being detained during military operations, and several still photographs of Iraqi POW's have appeared in U.S. and other news media.

The rules governing the treatment of prisoners of war spelled out in the third Geneva Convention of 1949 requires that POW's "must at all times be treated humanely," and must be protected against acts of violence or intimidation, and against "insults and public curiosity" (Article 13).

It's pretty clear we've violated that one repeatedly vis a vis Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Peace
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 03:22 PM

GUEST: I appreciate your views. In fact, I agree with most of them. However, I agree with many who have indicated it would be nice to have a name as opposed to an anonymous GUEST name. If you have the wherewithal to post, don't do so from behind the arras. If you can't agree to that, then I have to speak in another language to say what I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Peace
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 03:41 PM

It is my understanding that the USA was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention. Anyone want to help a feeble old man's failing mempry? mamoie? murmery? Ah, crap, what's that word? mumurry? mormery? Indextualized information retrieval syatem, yeah that's it. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 03:51 PM

From the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies:

The Geneva Conventions

There is much confusion over what exactly the Conventions are and whom they protect. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the two Additional Protocols of 1977 are the documents that currently outline the humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflict. There are four separate Conventions that govern the treatment of neutral personnel, medical workers, POWs and civilians. Specifically:

Convention I: for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field.

Convention II: for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea.

Convention III: relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.

Convention IV: relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

These four Conventions have been signed by 190 states. The Additional Protocols of 1977 (AP I and II) have been signed by a majority of states, but by substantially fewer than the 1949 Conventions (161 and 156 states respectively of 191 UN member countries). However, they are still considered to have customary, if not moral, authority by many. The purpose of the two Additional Protocols was to clarify and strengthen the protection afforded to individuals, POWs and civilians in armed conflict.

Both the United States and Iraq are parties to the Geneva Conventions. The United States ratified the Conventions on 2 August 1955 and Iraq ascended on 14 February 1956. However, both countries are not signatories to the Additional Protocols of 1977.

The Conventions become applicable at the beginning of hostilities. According to the Conventions, this includes "all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them." In the case of the present conflict, the Conventions would have become effective when the Coalition Forces began their attack on 18 March 2003, although international law, international humanitarian law and international human rights law would have always been in effect.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Peace
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 04:00 PM

Thank you, GUEST.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Arnie
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 04:08 PM

I thought most of us were pretty much anonymous on Mudcat. Whether I post as Arnie or Guest , does anyone know who I am or where I live? Oh God - am I not really anonymous?? By the way, I am not GUEST in the above threads, but I could be couldn't I, and that's my point....
or maybe I've just drunk too much red wine tonight...

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 04:08 PM

"They never had shots like that..."

Did I say anything about TV there? They had still cameras and they had film camweras, and they had newsreels in the cinema, and people used to go to the cinemas pretty well every week. And in all the recycling of images from that tiem I've seen over the years, there's never been anything comparable to those TV shots today.

I suppose one thing is those kind of things allow for a little bit more common sense to intervene. Modern technology does which makes it possible to have instant live TV coverage makes it possible to make serious mistakes. I think this was a serious mistake.

I repeat, that doesn't mean I'm thinking "poor old Saddam". I'm thinking, for example, how very useful this footage is going to be to anyone who finds themselves in a war crimes court for treating "our" people like that. Stuff like the Geneva Conventions aren't drawn up for altruistic motives, and they are there for good reasons. When they get shredded like this, everyone stands to suffer.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 04:11 PM

"They never had shots like that..."

Did I say anything about TV there? They had still cameras and they had film cameras, and they had newsreels in the cinema, and people used to go to the cinemas pretty well every week. And in all the recycling of images from that time I've seen over the years, there's never been anything comparable to those TV shots today.

I suppose one thing is those kind of things allow for a little bit more common sense to intervene. Modern technology with its instant live TV coverage encoirages people to make serious mistakes. I think this was a serious mistake.

I repeat, that doesn't mean I'm thinking "poor old Saddam". I'm thinking, for example, how very useful this footage is going to be to anyone who finds themselves in a war crimes court for treating "our" people like that. Stuff like the Geneva Conventions aren't drawn up for altruistic motives, and they are there for good reasons. When they get shredded like this, everyone stands to suffer.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 05:01 PM

McG - Yer slippin'! Incipient senility? ;)

I said I betcha that the capture of the highest rankers of the defeated hierarchy then was announced in just about 100% of the public media, in reportage appropriate to said media & the times. Just like today.

Glorious technicolour, intimate newsreel footage, & so on & so forth, was not acceptable journalistic practice of the time. It is now. A lowering of standards, perhaps, but you cannot draw a simple equivalence between acceptable journalism in 2003 & 50 years ago, which is what your comment overtly implied!

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 05:28 PM

One thing you can't export is democracy. It has to come from
within the country. Saddam gone doesn't change a thing.
Bremmer still calls the shots and the Iraqi people are still
suffering. Check out this Sunday's New York Times. Some Iraqis have said that it was better under Saddam although that seems too extreme for me. But at least I can see that under Bush's war crew, Iraqi life will not change very much.

Kendall has a point. The Sunnis and the Shi'ites have been at
it a long time. Does anyone really think that the only insurgents
are the Ba'athists?

Saddam is gone but the malady lingers on...............

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 05:51 PM

The difference between 60 years ago and now is that, at that time, this would have been controversial, but arguably legal; now it is an infringement of an international agreements which implicitly forms part of US law, and as such was illegal.

Allowing that footage out wasn't just a journalistic decision, it was a decision made by representatives of the US Government (and the UK and rest of the "Coalition", though I don't suppose they get much say on decisions like that, or much else).

And as such it provides a precedent for other people to do the same, and to argue, quite accurately, that in doing so they are in line with the standard of behaviour set by the US Government for the treatment of captives.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Gareth
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 06:29 PM

Kevin - You would have been one of the first to complain that there was no footage or other evidence that they has actually captured the real Saddam Hussain.

I am also afraid that the America/Britain are always wrong brigade should hold in mind that less civilised organisations need no justification to commit attrocities.

Tho (as an aside) this "Tu Quoq" aregument may well have saved the necks of Donitz and Raeder (SP) in 1945.

And if the Iraqui people do not try him there is still the outstanding hanging of a British Journalist, Hussain Barcoft (NAME ??) to account for.

Still if your devouring of the press is as avid as mine you will note that little bit in the BBC last week that the death penalty has been abolished in Iraq, as part of the attempts to restore some form of normallity.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 06:34 PM

are your Arnie Schwartsneger?

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 08:29 PM

As I've commented on another thread, Gareth, showing footage which would demonstrate that they'd actually got Saddam needn't have involved filming a medical examination showing them checking his teeth, and seeing if he had lice. And it's not Saddam's civil rights I'm worried about, as I indicated.

What you say about the death penalty differs from what I've seen - for example from this site, touching on the newly established Iraq War Crimes Tribunal: "The Governing Council decree establishing the tribunal left a final decision on using the death penalty to a transitional government scheduled to assume full sovereignty by July 1."

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: vectis
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 08:31 PM

Now comes the problem...
What the heck are they gonna do with him???

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 08:41 PM

Excellent question. If they exploit the US propaganda value up through next year's election by televising a highly publicized tribunal process, they will definitely lose the hearts and minds of Iraqis and Muslims everywhere.

If they don't exploit the US propaganda value for next year's election, they may well lose if things continue as they are going now on the ground, regardless of whether there has been an empty ceremonial "transfer of power" next summer (in time for the Republican coronation event at Ground Zero). All that will matter is how it is going for "our side" in Iraq. And the Americans who supported this war don't see the Iraqi people as being on our side. Rather, they see the Iraqi people as expendable pawns of the US power grab for control of the oil fields, which they view as necessary for both their own personal security and comfort levels, and therefore project as a "national security interest" just like the Bush regime keeps telling them.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 08:47 PM

McG - crap. Stop hiding behind verbiage. If the mores of today had been the mores of 19FortyX, we'd be seeing the same sort of pictures. Are you telling me that the various trials of war-criminals weren't in the media in as forward a fashion as the media considered appropriate? Because, if you are, I don't believe you.

What you have said is no sort of answer to the point I made. Modern (western) society expects to see what happens. As Gareth points out, if there were no footage, there would be many querying whether Saddam had actually been captured. We live in a less credulous age than 50 years ago. In this, TV is both cause & effect. Don't shoot (or blame) the messenger for the message.

I see nothing demeaning in the reportage of Saddam's capture, so far. Unlike some of the more emotionally influenced posters here, I am yet to see anything of the 'frightened' or 'humiliated' old man that they've apparently been watching. What does Saddam have to be frightened about? It's not as if anyone is strapping him to a naked bedstead & soaking him with salt water preparatory to attaching the electrodes, is it?

If (&, I stress, *if*) we see repeated & varied videos of an untried Saddam, I would start to give credence to the notion that he was being treated unfairly, & (perhaps) inhumanely. One video, shot at the soonest possible moment to show that he has been captured, does not constitute any sort of humiliation or duress IMHO. The potential benefits of immediate incontrovertible evidence of his capture outweigh any conceivable human rights violation, or any speculative 'precedent' that you might posit.

You speak of rules, but the rules of the UN & the rules of the Geneva Convention, like chivalry in its time, are observed more in their breach than their observance. The US can't win whatever it does, so can you offer one good rational reason why it ought to worry about a fairly minor infraction of 'international law'? It's not as if, in its breach, it's trying to massacre the Kurds or the Marsh Arabs is it? In theory, the US is wrong, but, in practice, can't you find more important issues that the UN ought to be worrying about? Because I'm sure many Mudcatters can think of a few!

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Janice in NJ
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 08:55 PM

Let me change the focus a little bit. I was opposed to the USA-UK led war, and I still am. But Saddam is really a bad guy, and I'm happy he's out of circulation. So now here are where things stand:

• There were no WMDs, the original justification for the war. Maybe Iraq was building them at one time, and certainly Saddam was jerking around the UN and its inspectors, but the plain truth is he was just woofin'.

• No one has established any evidence connection between Iraq and 9/11. There may have been some low level contact between an Iraqi official and some al-Qaeda operative, but that's about all. But beyond that, nada.

• The Ba'ath party regime is kaput. And there is an interim governing council in place, with next July 1 being the target date for a restoration of full Iraqi sovereignty.

Bottom line: it's time for Bush and Blair to declare victory and start pulling the troops out. Get some of them home by Christmas, and all of them by July 1st. Bring in the blue beret UN peacekeepers for the time being, recruited as much as possible from the Arab states. If they do that, then Bush and Blair will be remembered as liberators. If not, they will again quickly overstay whatever welcome they have and will be remembered as occupiers.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 09:04 PM

Hooray! Janice, most of your post is just about what I said early on in the other Saddam thread; & unlike you, I thought the war was both justified & overdue (though, equally, I disagree with ostensible justifiction).

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: jimmyt
Date: 14 Dec 03 - 11:02 PM

I am glad they caught him and I hope he faces justice and is punished for his actions.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 01:10 AM

I agree with JTT and McGrath. I was surprised to turn on the television this morning to a shot of them poking and examing Saddam. I remember the clearly expressed indignation when Amerian POWs were shown on Iraqi TV, and when they appeared, no one was checking their hair and ears and poking in their mouths.

But we all know that Dubya has many blatant double-standards in operation in this administration. "Do what I say, not what I do."

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 01:30 AM

From The Goon Show:

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

~~~~~~~~~

Seriously, if they kill him - either by an "escape attempt" or after a fair trial - like in the Wild West - there will be much covered up. After all - to pardon the expression - he does know "where most of the bodies are buried" and it would be extremely embarrassing to have him be interviewed in 20 or so years time....

like that guy who shot kennedy - oh no he didn't - oh yes he did - sorry, nearly thought this was the Panto thread for a moment...

Kill him and he becomes a martyr.

Of course the white house is going to tell us that everything wil be wonderful now - but only 20% of the "terrorists" are his supporters...

He's already been reported on Aust TV today as saying that he never had any WMD...


Robin

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 01:58 AM

Janice has it ALMOST right. But she's straight out of dreamland with her final paragraph. Anybody who believes that the current US administration intends to pull the American military out of Iraq is in dreamland for sure. One glance at the degrading images on t.v. reveals the real value of the capture of Saddam---a poor pathetic remnant of a once powerful , and cruel, dictator. His demise will be approved by all civilised people. But the monstrous series of lies which were put forward in justifying the illegal attack on Iraq are still, and will ever be, remembered. And anyone who imagines that this eventuality will see the end --or even the reduction-- of "terrorism" in Iraq is sanguine indeed. The day that all military installations and personnel leave Diego Garcia and similarly the Iraqi nation, that will be the day I will regain faith in the intentions of the US government. Saddam will be tried for crimes against his own people , hopefully by his own people. That's as it should be. Any involvement by any other power which has innocent blood on its own hands would be nothing short of farcical---and would be a guarantee of continued death and destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 02:19 AM

See the following is a thread for our songs on the subject.

Hiders In Holes - Songs for Saddam

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 03:34 AM

The US administration are being foolish in the way they're spinning Iraq; it goes down well at home, but abroad, and especially in the highly-populated and increasingly militant Moslem world, the impression is of a colonising oppressor harking back to the "Christian" Crusades of mediaeval times.

Don't think this is dangerous? Just take a look at the population of Indonesia, for instance.

What would it have been correct to do? In my view, the US should have announced that Saddam had been arrested, and immediately cleaned him up and brought him to court - not in chains, not in shackles, but in a very ordinary and civilised court occasion. Then he could have been photographed coming out of the court, perhaps; the photos of how he looked when he was arrested would have later come out in evidence.

The impression given by the whole American production - the administration's behaviour and the media's - is like a cowboy film. On CNN last night they were running what might have been a movie poster with "THE CAPTURE OF SADDAM" or some such, flagged over a sunset desert scene with Saddam Hussein looking like the Sheik of Araby.

Similar nonsense went on at the time of the 9/11 atrocity, and during the invasion of Iraq by US forces.

As for whether we should behave better to our enemies than they behave to us, I go with Voltaire, who said something like: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

But of course he was writing in the Age of Enlightenment, and in France.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Hrothgar
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 04:26 AM

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: They got saddam
From: kendall
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 05:19 AM

After 60 years we are still in Germany, Japan, Korea, the Phillipines, Kosovo etc. Iraq is just one more drain on our military. A thousand fleas can kill the biggest dog.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 03:01 PM

Of course they got him. Bush Senior's administration set him up in business. Where do you think he would have gotten those WMD's?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Peace
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 03:19 PM

A thousand dogs can confuse the smartest flea.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Peace
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 12:19 AM

It would be very foolish of the USA to pull out of Diego Garcia. It serves a strategic purpose, so it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Understand, that as far as I am concerned, the name of the game is global domination. I think the agenda is to accomplish that within decades (read one, tops two). The multi-nationals and special interest groups have a good friend in the USA, and Britain wants part of the action, too. Can't say's I blame them, what with having lost the Empire and all. Just wanted to brighten up your day, GUEST, Boab.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 03:06 AM

Brucie;

"Understand, that as far as I am concerned, the name of the game is global domination."

Is it? Somehow I don't think so because that as an objective is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to attain.

Some say that at the height of the British Empire, global domination was the name of the game. It wasn't, the possibility was even less likely, with a population the size of Britains. The factor that drove British foreign policy for the past 400 years was that nobody could be allowed to establish hegemony in Europe, as long as that condition remained Britain was safe.

Could the same thing not apply today with the US and the world?

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 03:24 AM

I feel that Mr. Hussein was treated fairly. What damage showing minute examination of his person could possibly do to someone who put so many of his citizens to death is beyond me.

As for WWII I remember seeing photos of Nazi war criminals hanging from scaffolds. The charred remains of what had been Hitler. Musolini and his mistress stripped and bloody, hanging upside-down from a lampost.

In Life magazine.

The corpse littered beach at Tarawa. The PILES of emaciated corpses at Auschwitz. The newsreels of decaying bodies being bulldozed into open pits, the GI's operating the 'dozers with handkerchiefs over their faces, tears streaming down their faces. The weeping British soldier standing over a huge pile of children's shoes at Treblinka.

There is no dignity in murder. Not the victims', not the murderer.
Saddam Hussein is being treated and will continue to be treated with a great deal more dignity than he dispensed himself and more than he deserves.

CB

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 05:29 AM

The point about Saddam and that footage is not primarily about his rights or his ill treatment. It's about a failure of the people in charge to adhere to agreed conventions about how prisoners should be treated and displayed which are there to protect ordinary soldiers in all armies. "Serve him right" and "how does that compare with what he's done" may be fair comments, but they are completely beside the point.

Those were the kind of shots that would have been expected, and denounced, from terrorists holding hostages, and would very likely have formed part of a criminal dossier against the people involved, if it came to a war cimes trial.

The highly unusual decision to make available for transmission the footage of a medical examination being carried out on a prisoner is not a matter of journalistic taste or ethics. It was an action of the agents of the US Government, presumably taken in the light of political considerations.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 07:44 AM

McGrath's point is dead on. The humiliating footage of Saddam isn't about Saddam's rights. It is about the rights of prisoners of war everywhere.

The fact that so many Americans are enjoying the hell out of seeing him publicly humiliated (which is what the Geneva conventions prohibit for very good reason) and are saying so (just tune into the cable news shows), proves the point of why we need the Geneva conventions. Public humiliation of prisoners is enjoyed by the side of the captors, and it is devastating to those on the side of the captured.

And that includes us when the tables are turned. But the mainstream society in the US has to be one of the most inhumane, vengeful, punishing societies on the planet (death penalty, no universal health care, war on the poor, etc).

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 08:55 AM

Having learned from the experience of the aftermath of the demise of Saddam Hussein's sons, coalition forces were very chary of releasing this news (in Europe it took something like six hours before the story was definitely confirmed). When they did come out with the news it was backed up by the statement that this definitely Saddam Hussein, by the man's own admission, by DNA testing and by identification by others who knew him well.

The pictures showing the medic examining his mouth and taking a swab provided some form of visual evidence to the world at large that what they were saying was the truth.

I take Kevin's point, but I believe that this was necessary and done for the best possible motives. The coalition forces have captured most of the targets that appeared as the "pack of cards", how many of the others have been shown on film?

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 11:40 AM

Teribus, I could agree with you about photographs of the swabs for DNA testing.

But checking for head lice? No.

That is just the sort of humiliating photograph/video the Geneva conventions were designed to preveent from being circulated. One of the top Pentagon media whores for NBC here in the US said that it has always been the Pentagon and administration plan to publicly humiliate Saddam if he was captured alive. Said it right there on MSNBC's nightly news on Sunday night. That is a pretty blatant violation of the Geneva convention, regardless of the fact that Saddam was the leader of the nation. His official status is still prisoner of war, and the Bush administration admitted that officially yesterday.

With the standing of the US at an all time low--and most Americans don't realize this, because they are oblivious of world opinion or never travel beyond our borders--the public humiliation of Saddam on international television by the US was not only illegal in terms of international law, but it just makes the US look bad, not Saddam.

What world leaders say, and what their people feel and believe, are two entirely different things, Teribus. That is a matter that the Bush administration keeps ignoring too. They are really myopic when it comes to world opinion. They keep thinking of it in terms of political leaders, not vox populi.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 11:55 AM

I thought it was El Ted

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: beadie
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 12:02 PM

Its getting to be really fun watching the politicos doing the "sidestep" when they cheer, huzzah and jump for joy over the dictator's plight. All the while, many of them are quietly hoping that no one will recall what these same folk were saying but a few months ago.

There is an interesting piece in today's Sydney Morning Herald that opens with this sentence . . .

"Sometimes in politics the moral high ground can only be reached by wading through the lowlands of public amnesia."

Ain't it the truth ?

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 12:32 PM

GUEST 16 Dec 03 - 11:40 AM

"One of the top Pentagon media whores for NBC here in the US said that it has always been the Pentagon and administration plan to publicly humiliate Saddam if he was captured alive."

Why do you think they took that stance? What do you think was the reasoning behind that decision?

As to it being, "...a pretty blatant violation of the Geneva convention, regardless of the fact that Saddam was the leader of the nation. His official status is still prisoner of war, and the Bush administration admitted that officially yesterday."

Brings up pretty interesting point in relation to past history, by declaring him a prisoner of war, they have in actual fact demoted him. Your sentence above should have read, "particularly due to" instead of, "regardless of". Because I think if memory serves me correctly convention pre-dating Geneva by at least a couple of hundred years (possibly more) has precluded the leaders of nations being brought to trial and executed.

Some examples from History;

Napoleon Bonaparte
After his defeat at Waterloo, tried to throw himself on the mercy of the Prince Regent, advice at the time was not to let him set foot on British soil, where he would have recourse to English Law. He was packed off to St.Helena and exile, no trial, no embarassing precedent.

Kaiser Bill
Allowed to flee to Holland to live out his years in peace.

Mussolini
The problem did not arise as he was murdered by his own people and saved the allies from setting an embarassing precedent.

Hitler
Committed suicide and saved the allies from setting an embarassing precedent.

Idi Amin
Allowed to flee into exile

The Shah of Iran
Allowed to flee into exile

Charles Taylor
Allowed to flee into exile

I do not believe that the standing of the US is at an all time low - far from it.

And Saddam's latest television appearance did make him look bad, maybe not in your eyes, but in the eyes of those whose viewing this was specifically targeted at it made him look very bad indeed, irrespective of what they might say in public.

Whenever I read a paragraph such as your last ("what their people feel and believe", world opinion and vox populi) I remember one thing from recent history - Kosovo

Left vox populi - there would not be one single ethnic Albanian left alive in Kosovo, and Slobodan Milosevic would still be President of Serbia (by the way he is only facing trial now because he was run out of office first).

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Peace
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 12:36 PM

The reason history repeats itself is because historians repeat each other. (Don't know who said that.)

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 12:49 PM

Media attention has once again turned back to discussion of where Bin Laden might be hiding in Afghanistan. The events after September 11, 2001 have been so conflated with this Iraq sideshow of Bush's that the media seem to have lost sight of the fact that THESE TWO EVENTS ARE TOTALLY UNRELATED.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Peace
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 01:49 PM

Teribus: Arrogance inflates itself to such an extent that it can no longer recognize its weakness, and this is happening in the US. Those who think the American/British presence in Iraq is totally honourable are deluding themselves. This is not only about ousting Hussein or establishing a 'democracy' in Iraq. It is also about strategic positioning, and part of that is oil. (I am not talking right or wrong, here.) The invaders have spent a considerable sum of money. I think they would want that back. How do you think they will get that back? Master Card? We can kick around bullshit terms, but let's don't be confused by our own rhetoric. This is not an attack on you; it is a statement about the folks who are to the right of me. Let's call a spade a shovel. And let's stop trying to whitewash American motives. There is no point discussing morals in a whorehouse. And such is global economics.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Amos
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 02:02 PM

SRS:

There is one aspect in which they are not unrelated, viz, American foreign policy in regards to ambushes, bushwhackings, and other acts which come under the all-too-handy heading of terrorism. Bush's foreign policy position is that as a result of the losses incurred on 9-11, the US will preemptively seek to disable the potential for terrorist attacks, and will seek out those involved in them.

Pre-emptive prevention is the policy under which he claimed he was invading Iraq and Afghanistan as well.   A very risky policy in the first place, and very alien to the American grain in general, it might have been accepted because of the strangeness of the times had it not also been for the fact that the invasion of Iraq was an application not based in fact. Bush has never quite answered up to that issue. His popularity because the use of force makes him seem decisive is sadly misplaced; it also makes him dangerous to the nation he claims he is protecting, a point often missed by those whose only duty is to drink beer at home and cheer their television screens.

A

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 02:59 PM

brucie,

Some points with regard to your post:

"Those who think the American/British presence in Iraq is totally honourable are deluding themselves."

And those who think that the American/British presence in Iraq is totally dishonourable are not?

Through the ousting of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of a democracy in Iraq would prove beneficial to that entire region.

What strategic position can be gained for the United States of America that it has not already held and enjoyed for the past forty years? If it is about oil, and it is not, there are far more relevant places in this world for the US

"The invaders have spent a considerable sum of money. I think they would want that back. How do you think they will get that back? Master Card?"

brucie, ould son, the amount that this has cost is miniscule compared to what the middle-east has cost the US in terms of supporting Israel and Egypt over the years. All frontline Arab states (a phrase from the bad old days of Nasser's pan-arabic dream, followed ardently by Saddam Hussein) with the exception of Syria have reached some form of agreement with Israel. The most hard-line Arab states, who openly advocated the destruction of the state of Israel were Iraq under Saddam Hussein's leadership, and Iran. Now one of those has gone, the other is crumbling from within - can the advantage of a shift in viewpoint - even if it it is to one of total neutrality not be seen as an advantage to all in the region. Because the kicker here for those Arab states and Palestinian terrorist organisations is that the right for Israel to exist is guaranteed not only by the United Nations, but specifically by the United States of America.

"This is not an attack on you; it is a statement about the folks who are to the right of me." No, it is a statement about your perception of the folks to the right of you.

You advocate that we should, ".....stop trying to whitewash American motives", OK that is fair enough with me, but at the same time, "let's stop painting them blacker than is need be".

Global economics are here to stay, the world got smaller we are now living in a village compared to the city our fore-fathers and theirs lived in.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 04:11 PM

""Those who think the American/British presence in Iraq is totally honourable are deluding themselves."

And those who think that the American/British presence in Iraq is totally dishonourable are not?

There is a position (in fact a lot of positions) between those two extremes - and the first sentence Teribus quotes there actually implies that.

When it comes to legality perhaps it's another matter - either something is legal or it's illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Peace
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 04:29 PM

Teribus: We all argue based on our perceptions. I am well aware of Israel's history and the money that has gone into that State's infrastructure and military. I happen to agree with the support of Israel, which will no doubt place me outside the pale for some who post here. However, I do not today see the USA as a defender of freedom and democracy. It is a business with the interests that businesses have. To see it otherwise is a mistake--from my perception, of course. When Israel bombed the reactor in Syria, I was pleased. Else, the planes that struck the Twin Towers could have been replaced by a 20-meg 'dirty' bomb. I am also sick of hearing how the Palestinians are suppressed by the Israelis. The Palestinians are suppressed by wealthy Arab states which use them as pawns. That said, I don't prerceive the USA to be the White Knights. They want resources. Face that. I have.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 06:07 PM

According to a certain Guest, Teribus: "The most hard-line Arab states, who openly advocated the destruction of the state of Israel were Iraq under Saddam Hussein's leadership, and Iran."

For someone who pretends to know what he's talking about Teribus shows a racist ignorance. Iran is not an Arab state. Iranians are not Arabs. We are Persians.

If Teribus was as smart as he thinks he is, he would know that not all Moslems are Arabs. For that matter, not all Arabs are Moslems.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: DougR
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 06:21 PM

It is beyond me why so many of you are so concerned about showing the pictures of Saddam on TV because it is humiliating to him. The butcher of Bagdad deserves such consideration? I don't recall anyone being upset when the pictures of Hitler and his gang were printed in news publications following their deaths. Had anyone done so, I believe their sanity would have been questioned.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 06:53 PM

DougR

Whilst thee and me have disagreed on a number of occasions you must remember that there are a small but vocal section of the 'Cat who work on the basis that anything the USA/UK/Isreal does is, by defenition, wrong.

And to be sure they are as stupid and pig ignorant as those who take the attitude as those who take the attitude "My Country/Party right or wrong".

There are those who are certain that the destruction of Nagasaki & Hiroshima was evil, imperialistic etc. Well an objective analysis might suggest that those deaths saved more lives than they cost, Japanese lives and others.

Teribus,

Whilst I admire your fight against the anti-Bush clones I suggest you are out of order on two points.

1/. The vote in Florida was rigged, tho by Legal Means - Not so much by the confusing ballot, but by the arbitary exclusion of voters from the electorial register. (Footnote 1) For once, and on this point only, Bobert has a valid point. Tho I would enquire as to where Bobert, asuming he was of an age to be conscripted, spent his National Service.

2/. Don't waste your breath on the deployment of Aircraft etc.. Bush ran away, an option open to all those who had rich and influential daddy's. Other White Anglo Saxon males used other tactics to avoid "365 Days up at the 'Sharp end'"

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 07:06 PM

Sorry - I cut off footnote one.

(Footnote One)

There was a deliberate trawl through the electorial regioster in Florida to exclude felons. IIRC this crude trawl tended to exclude ethnic minorities, many of whom had not been convicted of a felony.

What is appaulling is that the "Democrats" did not see this one comming, and counter it.

What is even more appalling is that no notification was given to those who were excluded so that the question of thier exclusion could not be challenged.

Well that good Republican Dwight D Eisnhower (SP) signed a civil rights act to try and banish this corrupt practice. I find it beyond belief that thgis crude gerimandering still goes on.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 12:41 AM

Saddam was shown on television, and his pictures were on all those front pages so that everyone would know he's really been captured. I don't mean to defend what happened. But I understand why it was done. Rumors are, probably circulating right now that they got the wrong man. They would definately be circulating, possibly in the mainstream media, if those photos hadn't come out.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 02:44 AM

GUEST 16 Dec 03 - 06:07 PM

My apologies Guest, I am of course perfectly aware that the state of Iran is Persian and not Arab, my error entirely.

That being said, and as you appear to be an Iranian, could you shed some light on the Iranian position with regard to formal recognition of the state of Israel and on peaceful co-existence with Israel, and explain how that squares with their funding and support of Palestinian terrorist groups in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 03:07 AM

On your second point to me Gareth, I fear that we must just agree to disagree.

"Bush ran away, an option open to all those who had rich and influential daddy's. Other White Anglo Saxon males used other tactics to avoid "365 Days up at the 'Sharp end'"

On your first sentence, as there were no charges brought against him by the US military, I am sorry, he did not go AWOL, he did not run away. While it might be the opinion of some people that he did, that is all it is - their opinion.

The second reference regarding "Other White Anglo Saxon males" does a great injustice. The options open to anyone for "national service" during the period we are talking about were as follows:
- Two years in the USMC; Army; Navy; Air Force. Service anywhere after completion of basic training.
- Four years in the US Coast Guard
- Six years in the Air National Guard

Joining either the USCG or ANG did not guarantee avoidance of service in S-E Asia (Vietnam), quite a few units/squadrons did serve there and all were liable for that service for their full six years. While out in the Far East we took part in exercises with the US forces, preparing for assignment in Vietnam. On the target ranges used by units operating out of Subic Bay, in the course of one week, I watched three aircraft spear in, all three pilots were killed, all three pilots were ANG - I believe the end was sharp enough for them.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 02:46 PM

Sorry, Gareth, I didn't mean to ignore yer well hidden question and I reckon it's fair of you to ask and I don't mind answering where I was during my draftable years. I was on the front lines of the anti-war movement and also doing draft counseling. But I also was running a rock n' roll club in Richmond, Va. which was right up the toad from Fort Lee and we went out of our way to make our brothers in uniform welcome.

As fir my own individual status, I went thru the consciencous objector route, was turned down (board politics) but ended up with a deferment for a history of my right lung collapsing out of the clear blue... Had it come down not getting the deferment and possibly being drafted I'd be livin' in Little Hawk's neighborhood today...

But as fir national service, I spent 3 years working between the Richmond City Jail as an inhouse G.E.D. teacher and doing the samw at Rubicon North, a drug rehab. halfway house teaching and counseling. I received what amounted to subsistence wages and given that I was "Staff on Duty" (SOD) every other weekend (Friday morning to Monday night) and also worked until 9:00 most night I probably averaged well over 100 hours a week working in an intense environmnet. Not exactly shooting at people but, hey... I've done what can... And since those days some 30 some years ago I have always been involved as a volunteer in community organizations and will continue to be until they plant me...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Gareth
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 02:55 PM

And that Bobert, is as good and honest an answer to any question that I have seen for many a day.

No hypocracy, no bull shit. You go up in my esteem.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 03:49 PM

Honest Doug, I'm not worried about Saddam as such, but at the breach made in the standards which have been agreed for how prisoners should be treated. All prisoners - the "good guys" too. If Saddam had broadcast footage like that of captured US or UK soldiers, that would have been added to his list of charges. But if he did do that (and I'd not be the least surprised), I'd very much doubt if he'd be charged for it now, and nor will the people lower down who were directly involved. And the same will probably apply for the foreseeable future in any case in which the USA are involved.

"I don't recall anyone being upset when the pictures of Hitler and his gang were printed in news publications following their deaths."

There weren't any pictures of Hitler following his death, and of course he wasn't captured. When it came to his henchmen, such as Doebbels or Goering, who were captured, there were no pictures issued to the press of them being medically examined by an Army medic, and checked for lice and so forth. (And yet it seems likely that ohotograopjhs ofbthese examinatiins would have been taken.)

In the case of Mussolini, of course, pictures were taken by press photographers after he had been executed and strung up by partisans, and these were published, but that was a very different matter. (But it was quite controversial at the time.)

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 04:14 PM

13008. Bezymenski, Lev. THE DEATH OF ADOLF HITLER (DER TOD DES ADOLF HITLER. 1969. New York; Pyramid Books. Mass Market PB; 12mo ; Very Good/ No Dust Jacket. This book has nothing to do with the life of Hitler--its job is to prove that Hitler did indeed die in the fire that took Eva Braun as well. The corpses of other Nazi officials      are dissected and discussed as well. Black-and-white photographs of partial and full corpses. Edgewear, rubbing, and creasing on the spine. The book as a whole is stiff, clean, and tight. Pages yellowing. 142 pages. E2. $10.00

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 04:30 PM

There weren't any pictures of Hitler following his death, and of course he wasn't captured. When it came to his henchmen, such as Doebbels or Goering, who were captured, there were no pictures issued to the press of them being medically examined by an Army medic (McGrath)

You're correct in correcting Doug, but in your correction you make quite the same error.

There were no pictures of Goebbels (not Doebbels) being medically examined by an Army medic for of course he wasn't captured. Like Hitler, he has died by suicide.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: beadie
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 04:33 PM

Teribus:

Au contraire, mon ami.

Speaking as one whose Daddy couldn't (more accurately, wouldn't have even if he could) pull any strings in that time frame, the options were not exactly as you describe them. For instance, I enlisted in the Air Force (for the minimum four-year hitch) to avoid being drafted into the Army or MC for two. Oddly enough, Uncle Sam then sent me to Canada without even threatening my citizenship (15 months at Goose Air Base, Labrador).

I believe that the two year service periods that you describe were for draftees and not for voluntary enlistments, other than for the AF and Navy, where draftees were rarely, if ever, assigned. Army and Air Natinal Guard enlistments were, indeed, for 6 years.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 04:35 PM

The US abrogated all prisoner rights when they decided to use Guantanamo Bay for its present purpose, so any debate on how they treat Saddam is superfluous -- the US is as it is now, with democracy practiced only as rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 05:07 AM

beadie 17 Dec 03 - 04:33 PM

Thanks for putting me right on the terms of service relevant at the time, my source of information was an ex-vet who was drafted. So if I apply the information you provided it comes out at:

Two Years:
For those drafted into the USMC & Army;
Navy (possible but not probable due to uptake of draftees by this branch of the armed forces);
Air Force ((possible but not probable due to uptake of draftees by this branch of the armed forces)).

Four Years:
-For those volunteering for Navy; Air Force; US Coast Guard.

Six Years:
For those volunteering for National Guard; Air National Guard.

The main point I was trying to make was that joining either the USCG or ANG did not guarantee avoidance of service in Vietnam, as many contend. That point, I believe, remains valid.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: DougR
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 11:21 AM

McGrath: I do remember seeing pictures of the bodies of Eva Braun and Adolph Hitler following their deaths outside the bunker in which they committed suicide. They were printed in LIFE magazine. Henry Luce's decision to print them (and the pictures of Mussolini and his mistress hung upside down by their partisan executioners) was not at all controversial where I lived. There was rejoycing that those despots were no longer among the living.

I don't question, however, that in your world they probably were controversial.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 02:22 PM

Technically speaking, T-Bird, you are correct. But, in reality, lots of folks did exactly what Bush did in enlisting in the Guard as a way of insuring they wouldn't go to Nam. 'Cept most, unlike Bush, fulfilled their comitments...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: beadie
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 03:48 PM

If memory serves, there were a few (and I mean VERY few) individual guard members who were ramrodded into active service, usually as punishment for some infraction ("spit-shine them brogans, boy, or I'll send your ass to 'Nam"). I even seem to recall that there was one entire Guard unit of a particular specialized sort (document shredders or public relations or some such thing) sent over for a short tour.

But, in general, you're right. Service in the Guard was almost as good a pass as a deferrment.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 04:22 PM

apparently when Saddam came out of the hole,
the first thing he asked was if the offer of asylum still on the table?
hey they'll get osama soon too, they just have to keep hanging around
that lucky hole.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 06:52 AM

beadie:

"I even seem to recall that there was one entire Guard unit of a particular specialized sort (document shredders or public relations or some such thing) sent over for a short tour."

Au contraire, mon ami.

Maybe it was one of these;
- Wyoming ANG's 135th Air Transport Group
- California ANG's 146th ATG
- Georgia ANG's 128th
- Mississippi ANG's 183rd
- Arkansas ANG's 154th Tactical Reconnaisssance Squadron
- Kentucky ANG's 165th TRS
- Nevada ANG's 192nd TRS
- Colorado ANG's 120th Tactical Fighter Squadron
- Iowa ANG's 174th TFS
- South Carolina ANG's 355th TFS
- New Jersey ANG's 119th TFS
- Columbia ANG's 121st TFS
- New York ANG's 136th TFS
- New Mexico ANG's 188th TFS

Give you an idea of the latters document shredding activities:

While in Vietnam, the NMANG lost one pilot, Capt. Michael T. Adams, and two pilots were listed as missing in action: Major Bobby Neeld and Lt. Michel S. Lane. During their twelve months in Vietnam, the 188th TFS flew over 6000 sorties and accumulated the following decorations:

8 Silver Stars
29 Distinguished Flying Crosses
26 Bronze Stars
270 Air Medals
3 Purple Hearts
The Air Force Outstanding Unit Award
The Presidential Unit Citation
The Vietnamese Gallantry Cross with Palm
3 Vietnamese Gallantry Crosses with Silver Stars
Vietnamese Air Service Medal, Honor Class
289 Air Force Commendation Medals
Army Commendation Medal

Initial deployment consisted of 1,076 Officers (447 pilots, 11 nurses), 8,102 enlisted men. they flew 24,124 combat sorties and logged 38,614 combat flying hours. Duration of deployments were 6 months (shortest) to 11 and 12 months (normal)

Quite a number lost their lives, some document shredding detail that beardie.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 10:53 PM

Well, wheather or not "global dimination" can be achieved or not remains to be seen. If you can control the oil, then lots of other stuff jus' falls in your lap. Stategically speakin', this is the first step toward "global domination". Historically speaking, it's repeating behavior expecting different results and will come back to bite the US/Uk tag team on the butt.

Stealin' other folks stuff just brings about bad karma...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 11:18 PM

Japan was seeking to control Asian oil sources in '41. It worked okay for them until they ran into a combination of bad luck, overly complex strategy, and very good USA military intelligence operations at Midway. But if it hadn't happened at Midway, it would've happened somewhere else soon enough, I figure. They took on way too much. As did Hitler. Even the USA will eventually take on way too much. Just a matter of time. Then some other ambitious player will step in and start playing global domination games...maybe China.

****

Goebbels and Frau Goebbels were also burnt outside Hitler's bunker by their personal staff, I believe, after having killed themselves and their children. Goering and Doenitz and numerous other commanders surrendered to Allied forces. Doenitz was the last official commander-in-chief of the Reich, appointed by Hitler shortly before Hitler's death. Goering had fallen out of favour with Hitler by that time and been sacked. Himmler was captured, trying to disguise himself and escape. Goering bit down on a hidden capsule of poison shortly before he was to be hanged, having conducted a very feisty and unrepentant defence of his actions at Nuremberg. Like most professional soldiers, he figured he was fighting for "the good guys". No surprise there. That's what they all figure, with only the rarest exceptions.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 02:41 PM

You are correct, Doug. I remember seeing the photos in Life Magazine back then.

But I do take issue with your statement to McGrath, "I don't question, however, that in your world they probably were controversial." You could have made your point nicely without adding that kind of snide remark.

Think about it a bit. Great Britain was under imminent threat of invasion by an overwhelming military monster, and as a result of what was intended to be a pre-invasion "softening up," suffered heavy bombing over a considerable period of time with many people (civilians) killed and much property damage inflicted.   The United States did not experience war in the anywhere near the same way. Apart from the initial bombing of Pearl Harbor (which, at the time was a "possession," not a state), a somewhat pathetic attempt to invade the Aleutian Islands (Alaska's status at the time was the same as Hawaii's), and a Japanese submarine shelling the coast of California, resulting in a few shell craters and no actual death or damage, war did not visit the shores of the United States. The experience most American civilians had of World War II was making good wages in a defense plant, having to keep track of ration books of "blue points" and "red points" when buying food (but no one ever went hungry), and having gasoline and tires for their automobiles rationed. There was, of course, great concern for our military personnel and there were many windows in my neighborhood that displayed a gold star, indicating that a son, brother, or father had been killed while serving, but the same thing happened to the British.

If Americans rejoiced at the grisly photos in Life Magazine of Hitler's and Eva Braun's burnt corpses and of Mussolini's and his mistress's mangled bodies hanging upside down from a lamp post, and the British, with a far more visceral reason to rejoice, found these photos distasteful, one could theorize from this that the British, having a much longer history as a nation than the United States, might just be a bit more civilized than the Americans.

And just so there is no confusion about where I'm coming from, I'm American, not British.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 02:49 PM

one could theorize from this that the British, having a much longer history as a nation than the United States, might just be a bit more civilized than the Americans.



Wal, could be, but there are other possibilities. For example, it is possible that the Brits felt just as thrilled by their cultural emphasis on emotional constraint and the suppression of feelings was what was being violated; it could be that they never having had a real "pioneer" period, or having had it in the misty past, made them embrace a different "emotional language" so to speak. Then there's the cultural belief in "good sportsmanship" which is very different between some Brits and some Yanks. Deends on class, I suppose, eh?


A

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 03:25 PM

Only speculation, of course. And certainly a matter of the individual responses of individual Brits or Yanks—or anyone. I can understand a certain grim satisfaction in seeing evidence of a genuine villain getting his just comeuppance. I experience it myself, and indeed cheer with the rest of the audience when the hero de cinema finally splatters the villain all over the landscape. But I do feel that, in real life, cheers and rejoicing at the sight of someone's mutilated corpse or at a display of a living villain undergoing indignities is a bit unrefined in the civilization department.

We gnash our teeth and mutter "Geneva accords" when an enemy displays our troops on television (just sitting there, actually), and then we turn around and giggle with glee when, all day long for days in a row, the various news channels show us a disheveled Saddam being checked for head lice. Did they have to show the head lice and tongue depressor sort of thing? All day long? For several days in a row? Still?

Lemme see, now—how do you spell "hypocrisy" again. . . ?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Amos
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 03:48 PM

I think it is important to remember that the military were not the ones showing those clips, nor the gummint, but the media who were trying to electrify.

A

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 04:27 PM

All too true. The media knows where to tickle us.

Bill Moyers, in discussing television on a recent PBS pledge break, commented in his spiel that there is little on commercial television of an uplifting, civilizing nature, hence, it was essential to support Public Television whenever possible. With exceedingly rare exceptions, it is only there that we see the more uplifting and enlightening programs, such as Nova or Masterpiece Theatre or Live from Lincoln Center or Cosmos or (modest blush) his series with Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth. He went on to say, "Unfortunately, by its very nature, the commercial media must appeal to the lowest common denominator. There are all too few civilizing influences in our lives."

". . . civilizing influences. . . ."

A telling phrase.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 06:56 PM

"Quite a number lost their lives, some document shredding detail that beardie." Bush made sure that it wouldn't be his. But it would be
some others that he sent to Iraq.

It's significant that the first words out of Saddam's mouth was
"Let's negotiate". He had been there before with the Bushes.

It's interesting that Khaddafi is as brutal a dictator as Saddam
and he is now being given a pass by the "negotiators".

Would it have something to do with Lybian oil?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 07:10 PM

Well, I can't say I remember Mussolini being strung up, I wasn't reading the papers back then. But my understanding is that there was a fair amount of adverse comment about the pictures, not because people liked Mussolini, but for the same reason there always tends to be about photos of messed up dead bodies in papers. People read the paper while eating breakfast, and children are likely to see newspapers - those kinds of reasons.

But the point was, those were photos taken by a press photographer, following an execution carried out by partisans.

Once again, it's MI>not a question of protecting the Saddams, but of holding the line against developments that threaten to make things worse for ordinary prisoners in all conflicts.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Gareth
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 07:10 PM

Guest Frank - I think this BBC report Click 'Ere sort of rains on your parade.

Mark you, and I fail to understand why I did not pick this up before.
If I remember correctly the US of A president gave Saddam 48 hours to evacuate himself and his family before any military action took place.

History tells us that SH did not.

Question - Will those whose ascertions that regime change was NOT ON THE AGENDA, OR A CASUS BELLI now care to appologise. And particullay appologise to the dead, and maimed, as a direct result of SH's refusal to save his own, and his families neck for the benefit of his country.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 07:13 PM

"...US of A president gave Saddam 48 hours to evacuate himself and his family before any military action took place."

I reckon in the circumstances he probably did evacuate himself. Definitely what they call a brown trouser situation.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Gareth
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 07:33 PM

Kevin - Stop ducking and weaving !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 07:54 PM

That wasn't ducking and weaving. It was coarse wordplay.

I don't think anybody has been ever claimed that "regime change" wasn't a war aim. The question has always been whether it was legal to go to war on that alone, and whether there actually was any validity in claims that there were other reasons which did make it legal.

All actions have numerous consequences. Getting rid of Saddam was of course a good consequence - but it has been and will continue to be accompanied by many other consequences. Adding up and working out the balance of good and evil will be be a lot more complicated than just saying "Well, Saddam is gone - that means it was all worth while."

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 02:04 AM

Guest Frank,

It was beadie's contention that ANG units did not serve in any combat role in Vietnam - reference his mention of "document shredding" duties. In that he was wrong, I merely pointed that out to him. The period in which ANG units were most active in Vietnam corresponds to the time at which GWB enlisted - serving in the ANG did not preclude you from possible service in Vietnam - on that point even Bobert agrees that that statement is "technically correct".

Quite a number on this forum bang on about those in power telling a lie often enough in order that it gets believed - you all should know - you do it yourselves more than those you accuse.

You find it significant that the first words out of Saddam's mouth was
"Let's negotiate". You further comment that, "He had been there before with the Bushes.", but omit to mention the fact that on those previous occasions, having negotiated, Saddam reneged every single time - i.e. he could not be trusted. He (Saddam) was given every opportunity both to disarm to the complete satisfaction of the international community, and to depart - He (Saddam) chose not to.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Peace
Date: 22 Dec 03 - 11:32 PM

I wanted to do a first for me on the Mudcat. Make a one hundredth post. I ain't got nothin' to say--and I see I ain't the only one--so I'll just wish y'all a safe, enjoyable holiday season.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 12:49 AM

According to an article in the "London Telegraph", Saddam Hussein was captured by an Iraqi tribe, who sold him to the Kurds, who drugged him and handed him over to the Americans.
The Kurds are to be congratulated for not mutilating the S.O.B., if the story's true. And George W. is about to have a little more egg on his presidential face.

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Amos
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 12:53 AM

Thanks for the link, Nameless One!


A

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Peace
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 02:48 AM

What was the date and title of the story?

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 01:39 PM

When he came out he asked if he had beat David Blaine

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 02:18 PM

A few days back, conservatives and others excoriated Howard Dean when he commented that the capture of Saddam Hussein didn't make us any safer. Now we find ourselves in an orange alert for possible terrorist attack.

Could it be (surely not!!) that Howard Dean was right?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: They got saddam
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 23 Dec 03 - 05:36 PM

Nice cover photo from "The Phoenix" (more or less Ireland's "Private Eye") showing Saddam asking the guy searching his mouth with torch and tongue depressor: "Are you still looking for weapons of mass destruction?"

Once again, people who would otherwise give vent to their contempt for the bad guy find themselves seeing things from his point of view because of the blatant double standards applied by the US. The Geneva conventions have been ignored by the US in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo ("sovereign Cuban territory"! - dixit Rumbo), rediscovered briefly when it suits them to object to the display of a couple of less-than-square-jawed Captains Courageous on Al Jazeera, then forgotten again when a photo-op with Saddo is too good to be missed.