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?