BS: Is Saddam dead yet?

Subject: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: harpgirl
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 01:38 PM

I've been following the Washington Post between clients all day and when they ran a picture of Saddam giving his "we shall not give up" speech, I said to myself, "That don't look like him!" Now the Post is running just such a story. I think the bastard's already dead and we are just cleaning up and getting ready to secure the oil fields he hasn't had set on fir.    harpgrrl

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Mr Red
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 01:50 PM

Which one? There are at least 8 look-alikes. I saw three of them on TV tonight on archive footage and no-one was pointing-out they were clones but it was painfully obvious in three cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: NicoleC
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 01:53 PM

Dead like Osama was dead? Or really dead? Either way, the administration isn't being as foolish this time to brag about it without proof.

I kinda doubt he's dead already; he's very good at staying out of harm's way. But I can hope. Even though I oppose the naked beligerance of the US in this war for political and ethical reasons, if they have managed to take Saddam out before bombing Baghdad or the rest of the Iraqi cities, it would be the best of possible outcomes at this juncture. No one is likely to mourn Saddam's death or removal from power, and if we have eliminated him without US military losses or Iraqi civilian losses it would go a long way toward repairing the US's tattered credibility around the world right now. AND defusing any potential terrorist retaliation for the loss of Iraqi civilian lives; the neither set of fundamentalists will get their holy war.



P.S. - I suspect all those special forces troops near the oil fields in question who "failed to prevent" the fires actually set the fires themselves this time around. It has little military or economic strategic value to Iraq to set fire to so few, but a lot of PsyOps value for the US to claim he did it again. If that's the worst that happens, we'll be lucky.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Willie-O
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 02:00 PM

Here's two pics side-by-side:
Saddam & Saddam

One is from the post-missile strike TV appearance (uniformed with glassses). The other is from his recent Dan Rather interview.

Personally I think it's the same guy in two different outfits. I don't imagine he had his beauty sleep...

They're not saying, and how long does it take to analyse a few photo frames? One theory is that if they didn't kill him with the missile strikes, the next-best result is to force him to make TV appearances so the signal intelligence units can try to pinpoint where they are coming from.

That being the case, he might still be alive but sending his best double to do the TV spot.

W-O

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 02:23 PM

Bush is from the neck up Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 04:02 PM

Aw shoot, Nicole. You were on a roll until you got to the P. S. then your basic skepticism caught up with ya'.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 04:06 PM

No, Bush is dead from the solar plexus up, I think...his heart is not operative either.

If the US military do succeed in killing Saddam, he will never die. He will haunt them for a generation or longer. Go outside your borders, where the media is not controlled by corporate America. Go to a country with a large Muslim community, and see what people think about the "arsenal of democracy".

George Bush and his advisors are succeeding in turning a petty regional tyrant and bully boy into a martyr and a hero for millions of disenfranchised people all over the world. Those same people see George Bush as a liar, a bully, and a hypocrite. They despise him. But you won't hear about that on your TV or radio, because you live under a controlled media monopoly. You're already in Orwell's 1984 society.

Nice work, guys. Wake up and defend your constitution now, because the real threat to your collective security is not in some wretched 3rd World country, it's in your own front yard, in the mansions and the halls of power, in Washington.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: NicoleC
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 05:40 PM

Actually, Doug, I think your insistence on believing everything the government tells you despite a few thousand years of all kinds of governments habitually lying or withholding information whenever it suits their purpose is far more irrational :)

Of course, all that stuff I said about taking Saddam out before bombing Baghdad was apparently dead wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 05:47 PM

LH, c'mon! Most of us here obviously have internet access and so read news from around the world, as do other Americans. We know what other countries are saying and some of us agree with them! Did you hear about the over 175 protesters who were arrested in San Francisco, today? THAT was on google news and elsewhere. A good place to look for alternative stuff is www.freespeech.org. Some satellite companies even carry Free Speech TV! Who'dathunkit? Right here in Americay!

Sometimes you just get too broad in your generalisations, ya know?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: SINSULL
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 05:53 PM

Maybe Dan Rather actually interviewed a Saddam look-alike and the real one is working undercover at Logan Airport.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 06:07 PM

Maybe he's drinking it up at the Watergate, Sins!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 06:29 PM

I am skeptical about the horn-rims Sadaam picture, myself. There are only rumors about the effect of the "decapitation" strike. It would be good, given there IS a war on, if we could in fact have succeeded in disrupting their lines of command so high, so early.

The bombardment of Baghdad has so far been highly restrained, a softening of the enemy mind, with less than 100 missiles sent in, compared to the several thousand they were bragging about as the initial bombardment planned. The possible reasons for this change are 2, that I can see: one is to unsettle enemy forces by gaining unpredictability. The other -- far more hopeful -- is that the possibility of accomplishing the mission of the campaign without massive force might be in view. They are trying hard to keep civilian harm to a minimum within the constraints of their military goal.

Only time will tell.

I think we should let them have their ltitle war just now, and concentrate on getting our Bill of Rights back from a near death experience.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 07:24 PM

Yup, Amos...fight like hell for your Bill of Rights and your Constitution while you still can. Got that right.

Kat - Yeah, I generalized. I am well aware that many Americans see through the disinformation. What really bothers me is that over half of them still don't. That is very sad. And as long as that endures, Bush and his advisor Karl Rove will figure they have a mandate to do exactly what they're doing and break international law, cos they don't give a damn what anyone thinks outside the USA. The World, to these guys, is either an opportunity to be exploited, a nuisance to be ignored, or an enemy to conquer.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: NicoleC
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 08:03 PM

Amos, my friend, I'm afraid the two aren't different causes at all. The "war" only exists because Congress has abdicated Constitutional responsibility. The "war" only exists because we have allowed the Executive branch to expand its powers over the last few decades to the point where whatever the President really wants, he inevitably gets. Every time Congress fails to discuss and decide something that falls under their reponsibility, democracy is weakened further.

That includes the de facto repeal of many of our Constitutional rights -- ONLY because the Executive branch has power that goes unchecked -- not because the Constitution has been legally changed. Without those essential rights, democracy doesn't exist.
If the legal system of government can be subverted at will by one or few people, that's not democracy, it's a dictatorship.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 08:24 PM

And that is precisely what happened in Germany between 1993 and 1939...and then it was too late to do anything about it anymore. It doesn't happen in one day, it happens by little degrees, little assaults on your legal safeguards, chipping away your basic rights and freedoms piece by piece.

And then one day you wake up and you have no choice left but to shut up and submit, join the complicit servants of the ruling elite, escape the coutry, or die.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 09:00 PM

Amos penned:
"The bombardment of Baghdad has so far been highly restrained, a softening of the enemy mind, with less than 100 missiles sent in, compared to the several thousand they were bragging about as the initial bombardment planned. The possible reasons for this change are 2, that I can see: one is to unsettle enemy forces by gaining unpredictability. The other -- far more hopeful -- is that the possibility of accomplishing the mission of the campaign without massive force might be in view. They are trying hard to keep civilian harm to a minimum within the constraints of their military goal."

There was another explanation offered by the talking heads today. There supposedly are negotiations going on now between the coalition forces and some of Saddams elite guard of the Republican Army. While there is talk, there is room to wait.   

Time will tell if this be true or no.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 09:20 PM

Nicole, you are as usual clearly focused on the core of the thing -- and that is the issue indeed. If we do not restore the balances between the center-- the Constitutional umbrella -- and the pathetic legislative and the rogue and somewhat mindless executive --we will be handing on a sorry legacy indeed. You and I will probably move on before it gets as bad as Orwell envisioned, but my daughter will grow up believing that the Bill of Rights, like the ancient bands of Dixieland and knights in armor, were part of an long-gone happier past.

The key to my mind is to understand what happened. The growth of communication and transport power and the gradual creeping of Federalism far beyond its original scope led to a scale of commercial entitiy that Jefferson and Franklin and Huntington never imagined. And that led in turn to the loophole of commercial power over the state. Today it costs a lot to become a senator, and much more to become a president. It seems off that the acceleration of communication has driven the cost of running into the stratosphere, but it has. The centers of mass in corporate America are huge and exert a wrecking influence that far exceeds anything that was in play prior to the Second World War.

If there is a battle that can be fought for the future it would be around that issue, I think. Don't ask me how.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 09:37 PM

Exactly so, Little Hawk! I've been yelling my lungs out about exactly that, and with a few exceptions, the response I get is, "Oh, no! This is America! That can't happen here!"

Oh, yeah? Keep thinking that, folks, and you'll have a chance to see how you look wreathed in barbed wire.

(Hi, Doug!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 09:42 PM

I dunno' whether the fucker is dead or not, but I want to commend whatever general called a halt to the shock and awe/ kill anything that moves campaign, until they at least can see how that strike affected the Iraqi command structure. Maybe no lives saved in the long run....but maybe there are. It may have been only a prudent military decision, but at least there was a touch of saneness and humanity in there. The war is still a mistake and an action that didn't need to happen, but I'm encouraged to see at least someone with a touch of humanity somewhere..........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 09:43 PM

Hey, I saw Saddam drivin' thru the K-Mart parking lot just a couple of hours ago. I know it was him 'cause his licnese plate read "Mizt Me".

That's my story and Iz sticken too it.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: harpgirl
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 09:47 PM

...at this point I am believing that Saddam is dead. Maybe one of his sons is still alive but judging from the Iraqui response to our assault, Saddam is dead and they don't ahve any coherent military defense.

It should be noted that no chemical or biological weapons have been launched. I guess he really didn't have any. What pains me is that Bush may be re-elected based on the outcome of this war. I wonder if he can really fix the things that aren't working in our democracy. harpgrrl

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 09:49 PM

But you won't hear about that on your TV or radio, because you live under a controlled media monopoly. You're already in Orwell's 1984 society.

Nice work, guys. Wake up and defend your constitution now, because the real threat to your collective security is not in some wretched 3rd World country, it's in your own front yard, in the mansions and the halls of power, in Washington.... I'm glad you admitted 'generalizing', Little Hawk. For a minute there I thought you were Dratted Guest.

Many, many of us in this country are just as aware, just as informed and just as concerned about the situation in our country and its ramifications as you in other countries. Unless you are advocating that we should be 'taking out' our leadership?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: harpgirl
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 09:54 PM

...and BTW Little Hawk, although I am certain I would greatly enjoy meeting you in person, I am tiring of your "holier than thou" northern American sense of superiority. It's all an accident of birth. Of course, some like moonchild have successfully emigrated, but basically we are of the same fabric....love harpgrrl

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 10:06 PM

I would not presume to advocate that, Ebbie...specially if I was living south of the Canadian border.

I recommend peaceful means of stopping the destruction of your democracy at this point...peaceful means can still work, I think.

Likewise, I would have recommended peaceful means of negotiating with Iraq over weapons and other matters. Those means were already working, and working quite well, which is why Russia, Germany, China, and France are now very upset over the totally unnecessary war which has been launched, illegally, upon Iraq.

Resolution 1441 gave no authority to launch a war, and Bush knows it. That is precisely why he tried to have a new resolution passed. It failed miserably. He went to war anyway. He is an international outlaw, and the World knows it very well, but they are not presently well armed enough to stop him. That may change in awhile...as it did for Hitler in 1939, when France and England declared war on Germany. Hitler was shocked to his core when they did. He was expecting them to grumble and complain over Poland, but do nothing more than that.

Iraq is not the final target of Bush's outlaw administration, just as the Czechs and Poles were not Hitler's final target (his next target was to have been Russia, had not the French & English screwed up the game plan in '39). Sooner or later, the international worm will turn unless Americans themselves kick out this crazed administration and mend fences around the World in a very big way.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 10:14 PM

Amos-The issue is campaign finance reform. If the advertising playing field is leveled, it'll go a long way towards making politics about the issues instead of the PR.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Troll
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 11:08 PM

L>H> Read this please.
"Resolution 678 was passed on November 29, 2990, soon after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Resolution 678
"Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait .. to use all necessary means to uphold and
implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and
security in the area."

Resolution 687, passed after the liberation of Kuwait, requires disarmament of Saddam Hussein and reaffirms
resolution 678. Since resolution 687 reaffirms 678, and since 678 allows Member States to use "all necessary
means" to implement "subsequent relevant resolutions", it follows that resolution 678 allows the United States (a
Member State) to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein.

Resolution 1441, yet another resolution requiring Saddam to disarm, also reaffirms resolutions 678 and 687. So ..
same logic applies."
According to the news reports that I have seen, the Pentagons forensics experts say that the man who appeared on Iraqi T.V. last night was Saddam. Just how they arrived at that conclusion, I don't know. They mentioned his voice, for one thing.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 11:17 PM

They did digital analyses of his voice, and had a physiognopmy expert measure key things like the diameter of his eyebrows and the location of his cheekbones.

But he looked a LOT worse for the wear if it really was the same guy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: NicoleC
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 11:35 PM

For Amos, an opinion:

The reason our system is so out of balance is because, occassionally, we DO need strong leadership. While the framers may not have intended the Executive Branch to be the equivalent of a full time head of state like a King -- it's mission is to enforce the laws passed by Congress -- as humans, we are used to having *A* leader. Committees by nature are slow and have difficulty making the quick judgements needed in a time of crisis; and the world moves much faster than it used to.

The time we usually most need strong leadership is during war. I think the framers understood this, hence the position of the President as Commander-In-Chief. As a result, during wartime we tend to lose civil rights and Congressional power for the sake of convenience and efficiency of one man -- the President aka the head of the military. Unfortunately, after the crisis is over we don't get them all back, and the damage is cumulative.

And the average populace understands this too -- we tend to rally around a President when we need decisive leadership. Even a bad decision is often better than no decision at all. This inevitably leads to the use of war or violence as a political tool on the part of the Executive Branch. Bomb a few people for a trumped up reason = gain some popularity. Example: Clinton's Monicagate withdrawal of weapons inspectors from Iraq and subsequent bombing campaign. Diversion by war.

During the Cold War, rights were eroded away under a constant so-called and mostly theoretical Communist Threat. Any action was politically justified if you could say it was anti-Communist. After the Cold War was over, civil rights were slowly being restored at the expense of the power of the government.

This is not a lesson that has gone unheeded. A perpetual state of war is the easiest way for a individual politician to wield the most power -- and whatever their motives are, anyone who is drawn to politics and power is going to be drawn to the way to gain themselves the most power. The War on Drugs didn't quite do the job. Nor does the current administration deny their perception of the future of the US needing to be a perpetual state of war, this time versus terrorism; fighting terrorism even while we nurture it elesewhere.

No matter how smart and able a President is, they are going to make mistakes. Maybe big ones. And the zeal and passion that gets you elected is not necessarily a good way to do your job. A strong legislature can moderate both tendencies; a strong judiciary can keep both other houses in check. Without it, the country is at the whims of an individual and all of their personal character flaws and mistakes.

And I think most Americans instinctively understand how distorted our government has become. It's the kind of distortion that brought down the Roman Empire. Unfortunately, instead of becoming more involved in democracy to fix the problem, most of America keeps hoping for the perfect President to do "it" for them, whatever "it" may be in their opinion.

It CAN lead to a government collasping under it's own weight, ala the Roman Empire. Barring a massive revolution (which would no doubt lead to a lot of lives lost) or the utter humbling of the US on the world stage (equally unhappy to contemplate), there are no quick solutions. I personally think the best hope is to get citizens reinvolved in democracy, but it's unlikely to happen as long as we have average citizens who feel like government is something THEY do (the rich, the families of the powerful). And the influence of citizens is hopeless compared to the political influence money will buy.

Getting the money out of politics might not be a solution, but it could be a good start. It couldn't hurt. Individual citizens care about issues in a way that a corporation or a large government can't. Corporations don't care about a clean environment for example, because they exist to make money. But individuals -- no matter what their politcal affiliation -- almost always do when it comes to the environment in their back yard.

No government composed of politicians who have sold their souls to moneied interests will ever declare a War on Hunger or a War on Ignorance; there's no profit in it. But a group of citizens might.

Amos, I don't think your daughter will grow up in a US without a Bill of Rights. Maybe. But I strongly suspect that a revolution will happen in my lifetime -- hopefully more huge revitalization than revolution -- but I don't see the current trend of affairs surviving. It will probably get much worse before it gets better, but Americans remain a group of stubborn and willful bastards, and the second and third generation immigrants will probably lead the charge to mold America into the shape they were promised, but rarely get.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 11:44 PM

Tomorrow's Washington Post is reporting that at least Sadaam and probably both of his sons were in that bunker when it was hit and that someone called for medical aid right after the strike.

And, Sadaam's ex-mistress, who has defected, says the guy in the tape wasn't him. She's been right at least a dozen times before and she's seen more of him than the CIA and all it's analysts combined.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 12:59 AM

LH, make no mistake about it, the shrub doesn't give a damn what his own citizens say, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 07:54 AM

I am often amazed at the reactions of people to their leaders when they display leadership - that is what they are there for - that is what your current President is doing, that is what Tony Blair is doing. They are not put in place purely to implement the results of opinion polls.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:28 AM

LOL!!! Leadership?? Bush??? ROFL!!! he couldn't lead a cheerleading squad without the hands of Rove, Cheney & Rice up his back animating him.

How precisely do you define "leadership"? A pathological disregard for any opinion and agenda but your own?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: harpgirl
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:47 AM

...hmmmm...yup I think the whole lot has been killed in the bunker that was hit Wednesday...Saddam's old mistress said "It ain't him" and she has successfully identified about a dozen doubles as not-him!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 09:10 AM

troll - I am well aware of the content of those resolutions...but...

Conditions have changed since 1991. That is why Russia, France, China, and Germany no longer see the matter as they did then, and why they see no justification for going to war.

You have to ask yourself..."Shall I live by the letter of the law...or shall I live by the Spirit of the Law?". Wise people do the latter, not the former. People seeking justification for extremely unwise actions will often quote the letter (the exact wording) of some outdated and now irrelevant document as such justification...without regard to the fact that the situation has changed radically in the interim.

The USA claimed, in 1991, that they had destroyed 80% of Iraq's military capability in the Gulf War. I suspect that claim was pretty accurate. Iraq has been isolated and subjected to bombing and starvation ever since. They are tremendously weakened, and no threat to the World in general, but they do sit on its 2nd largest oil fields! Bingo. There you have the main reason for this war, as well as purely domestic American political reasons dreamed up by Karl Rove, which have nothing to do with protecting anyone except the Republican administration in the USA...and ensuring their further hold on power...so he thinks. What Bush thinks, I don't know. I suspect he is a bit at sea. He is probably very upset over the fact that Saddam has a statue of himself in Baghdad standing over the apparently severed heads of George Bush Sr and Maggie Thatcher, and that he tried to blow up the elder Bush once. George Bush is extremely sensitive about any attack or slight on his father (according to the book I've been reading)...so I think this would weigh heavy on Dubya's mind. If so, that is unfortunate. It is no justification for launching an irresponsible war that threatens millions of people.

To drag up out of date resolutions as spurious support for this war may fool you, but it has not fooled France, Russia, China, or Germany. Ask yourself why. They know this is not about disarming Saddam, but about building an American empire. And they oppose it for that reason, not because of nitpicking over the interpretation of the wording of some obsolete U.N. resolutions.

Times have changed. America's gameplan hasn't.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: DougR
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:33 AM

I think he is alive. He did appear in that TV photo as though he had recently been through a rather shocking experience to say the least.

Don: I'm going to buy myself some first-class wire cutters. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:52 AM

" Ask yourself why. They know this is not about disarming Saddam, but about building an American empire."

I asked myself...and I was not able to read minds quite so easily as you, LH. I do NOT like Bush, and I have grave misgivings about his precise motives, but "building an American empire"???? Isn't that just a bit overdone? And I also am not convinvced about France...etc. motives for opposition....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 12:04 PM

LH:

The argument for bringing down Saddam's tyranny is persuasive, however much I agree with you that Bush is a loose cannon.

Tyranny is an enemy that even you and DougR can agree upon.

And there is no question that Iraq has been under the burden of tyranny. Your proposition about building an American empire is slightly off. I doubt we would know what to do with an empire of the kind you mean, if we had one.

I think we do want a planet united by commerce, productivity and open communication. I think we do want a planet where mass destruction of human lives is a bad memory, not a regular event. I do not think we want an American empire anymore than you and yours want a Canadian one. I think Bushwah sincerely believes -- delusorily or not -- that Hussein was a potential threat and a danger to such a community of nations. I don't agree with how he is managing that belief, but I think he believes it.

It is much too facile to attribute conspiracy and cosmic-scale madness to "others" as you know well. Bush may be the least deft and most reckless President the United States has ever had, but I do not believe he has any concept of colonializing anyone.

Commercial success is a different story --- any group working to produce something for exchange wants to succeed at it. But that desire is just as real to a Mexican truck-builder as it is to, say, Intel or Pfizer. It's why people form companies.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 12:49 PM

I just had the most amusing daydream as I sat in my office...there was George W, as big as life, standing at the microphone, with Donald Rumsfeld next to him, and they were doing two-part harmony to "Last Night I Had the Strangest Dream", and doing it very well. They were being backed up by, of all people, the Limelighters on banjo and guitar. That's when I knew I was dreaming.

:>)
__________________________________________________
"A little madness goes a long way in mad times."
      Confucius Moosus, 349 B.C.)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Willie-O
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 12:58 PM

umm, Amos my friend, heard of the Project For a New American Century"

Look 'em up for yourself. http://www.newamericancentury.org Bush isn't bright enough to be an accidental world ruler.

Judging from their links, though, they haven't bothered with a plan to dominate Canada. I'm offended.

Bill

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Troll
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 01:08 PM

Well, Little Hawk, if it's in a book I'm sure it must be true. And if "so much has changed" since 1991, I guess we can throw out all those ancient documents like The Magna Carta, and The US Bill of Rights, and The Tem Commandments.
But then, by that logic, we could also throw out the UN Charter. I mean, a LOT has changed in the world since 1945.
Go back to your book. Your whole line of reasoning is illogical and based mainly on how you wish things were instead of on how they are.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 01:18 PM

Amos - I'm really not sure what George Bush's conscious intentions are. They may be, in his terms of reference, quite honourable and laudable.

It is not G.W. that worries me nearly as much as Karl Rove, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Condoleeza Rice...and the shadowy people who stand behind them. I don't know who those people are, nor does the general public. They are not people whom we elect. And I think it is they who are trying to build an empire, using the military might of America, Israel, and the U.K. to do it. They are also trying to do away with the US Constitution and your civil rights. They have extremely pragmatic reasons for so doing.

The US military are being USED...Bush is being USED. The US military may be already becoming dimly aware of that, according to some rumours I have heard. I hope so. They may yet save their own nation. I hope the same thing about the FBI agents who still believe in democracy, and have some insight into what is going on now.

Doug R and I agree on a LOT. We are both in favour of freedom, liberty, justice, fairness, law and order, honesty, kindness, moral responsibility, and truthfullness. I can guarantee it. We just have radically differing views about who is leading society toward achieving those good things. And so it goes...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 02:59 AM

Saddam Hussein dead? Perhaps he is. He's not important. The drive for oil and power has now resulted in the deaths and mutilation of a multitude of children and innocents which are being either callously ignored or deliberately hidden by those who now demonstrate the "shocking awesome " power of REAL weapons of mass destruction.May the perpetrators rot in Hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Mudlark
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 04:39 PM

Evidently the death of Hussein IS no longer important...according to responses by Frank at his press conference this morning. When repeatedly asked about the health and/or whereabouts of SH he replied offhandedly that he didn't know, but that it didn't matter, anyway, because (note the shift) it's The Regime that must be destroyed.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 05:27 PM

troll, old pal, your ego and mine are attracted to each other just like two moths trying to hog a single nightlight. Everything you say about me, I can say about you, and vice versa, and what a joy it is! Ha! Ha!

Let me quote your last paragraph:

Well, Little Hawk, if it's in a book I'm sure it must be true. And if "so much has changed" since 1991, I guess we can throw out all those ancient documents like The Magna Carta, and The US Bill of Rights, and The Tem Commandments.
But then, by that logic, we could also throw out the UN Charter. I mean, a LOT has changed in the world since 1945.
Go back to your book. Your whole line of reasoning is illogical and based mainly on how you wish things were instead of on how they are.

If what is in a book? Hang on...gotta consult the above sections...

Oh, I see...the personal stuff about G.W.'s love for his father? Well, it seems fairly plausible to me, troll, and it does not reflect badly on G.W. that he loves and is loyal to his father. I think you ought to try reading the book. It's by two Texas journalists who have personally known George Bush Jr. and Karl Rove for decades, and they certainly don't paint Bush as some kind of evil guy. Why should I not give serious consideration to what they say?

Just read the friggin' book, and then make up your own mind. It's called "Bush's Brain - How Karl Rove Made George Bush Presidential".

Now what are you suggesting? That:

1. No previous authoritative statement or rule is EVER to be changed?

At no time did I suggest "throwing out" the U.N. Charter, or the Ten Commandments, or anything else. I suggested modifying existing agreements, and building upon them to form new agreements to meet changing conditions. And that is exactly what France, Russia, Germany, and China were suggesting in saying that it was not time to fight yet, but time to continue inspections and disarmament of Iraq (which was already being done in stages). That is what the majority of the World is saying.

Bush doesn't want to wait. Waiting is too difficult (for the impatient or the greedy or those who desire a war regardless of the circumstance), and it costs money to maintain troops in the desert. So why not just drop a few thousand bombs right now, kill a few thousand people, and take by force what could be achieved without force anyway?

Now, troll, apply this last statement to yourself:

Your whole line of reasoning is illogical and based mainly on how you wish things were instead of on how they are.

Exactly. So is yours. We both make no sense whatsoever from the other guy's point of view (despite the fact that we both have strong abilities in using logic), because we have differing underlying ideas about who in this world is being truthful and who is not. And we both base our line of reasoning on how we wish things were instead of how they are. EVERYBODY does that. That's how people change their world (and themselves) and progress toward better things, by focusing on the way they wish things were (rather than how they temporarily are), and working toward it bit by bit as best they can.

I can see my own subjectivity AND yours. How come you can only see mine?

DING! (your turn) (*grin)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 06:58 PM

Like I said, Little Hawk, while you were down South, there are folks her that are so utterly partisan that if Bush got up on the TV and told people that the population had gotten out of hand and that we were going to have to satrt eating babies, there would be several of these folks who would post recipes without a second thought.

True believers, excepti in this case it isn't so much as ideas but the worshiping of George W and the Gang.

Yeah, they may claim that I am the partisan one but if so, it is not about political parties but ideas and policies. If Bush were to put forth policies that were pro-human and pro-earth I would be very supportive of those policies, but he hasn't.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Troll
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 03:19 AM

L.H., Bush doesn't want to wait for WHAT? Giving the inspectors more time? More time for what?
According to the terms of the cease-fire in '91, Saddam was to immediately begin destroying his military machine. The job of the inspectors was to see that it was done.
If you'd like to see how it was supposed to have been done, take a look at the disarming of South Africa.
Saddam began to stall almost at once over the next 12 years the UNSC passed 16 resolutions, each calling on Saddam to live up to the terms of the cease-fire agreement or suffer the consequences.
Saddam ignored them.
He knew that if he stalled long enough, the attention of the world would shift and he could go on with his weapons programs. When things got a little hot, he'd allow the inspectors to find a few shells or a barrel of chemicals and he would promise cooperation. And almost everyone bought the lie because they wanted to believe that it was so.
At last, he was given one final ultimatum; leave within 48 hours or we'll come after you. He chose to stay and we, unlike the UN, kept our promise.
The reason I mentioned throwing out things like the UN Charter was to show you the silliness of your statement about out of date resolutions. Since there is no expiration date on the resolutions, they must still be valid. If they are not, then the validity of the other documents I mentioned can also be called into question and for the same reasons.
We are not so far apart in what we want, we just disagree about the best way to accomplish those goals.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 10:06 AM

Well, it is pretty much a moot point. Basra is surrounded, and Baghdad is in sight, and the fact is there is a full-scale war under way in the land of the Euphrates and the Tigris. It appears probable that Hussein did escape that early blast.

As for a drive for oil and power, while there is always some element of that, there are a lot of other factors in play here. I don't think short and superficial answers serve to understand. There are vectors on both sides of the argument which have a lot of merit -- the fight against tyranny, the probability of WMD, the links to terrorism alleged and/or actual. Oil and power, arguably, are the main reasons the French are taking their position -- Elfin has large contracts with the Hussein government.

But this is a cloud of repetitive signifying in the face of the fact that the tanks are rolling for Baghdad.

I hope they clsoe this out fast -- it could be the end of the week, or it could be months.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: harpgirl
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 10:09 AM

Bobert:

The baby eaters are indeed a scary bunch. We're told 75% of Americans are in favor of the war. But in Iraq, Saddam must have a similar number of supporters...

Little Hawk: The loyalty to "father" is an active part of both of the families waging this great war on humanity. Revenging one's father is not a noble cause. That is a Freudian interpretation which is nevertheless, incorrect. However, revenge is a very accepted part of many primitive societies. A man who says, "I'm not sure my father was right," will bring much more to humanity than one who says, "My father was right, I must finish the job."   

troll: Let me first say that I thought your set on the Azalea stage last weekend at Willfest was delightfully entertaining. You have such charm and charisma on stage.

However, I see reality very differently than you do on the matter of
Iraq. Twelve years of sanctions on the Iraqi people, twelve years of weakening the Iraqi army, many, many inspections, and the war we are waging still has less than a dozen casualties. That fact says something very differnt to me about Saddam.



harpgrrl

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 01:21 PM

Well spoken, troll. We're getting back on solid ground now. As you say, "We are not so far apart in what we want, we just disagree about the best way to accomplish those goals."

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Is Saddam dead yet?
From: GUEST,john h
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 11:31 AM