|
15 Dec 03 - 04:54 PM (#1073185) Subject: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: skarpi I have some questions like so many others. 1. Why is he not dead? 2. Why did he not kill him self ? 3. Why did he not fight like a man with his troops? 4. He was always talking about that he would win the troops from Us Why ? 5. When he was president of Iraq and they had all this money from the oil they were selling ,why did they not bild roads and houses and bild up the country this I do not at all understand, this man is more than sick. 6. Are the Us arm forces gonna let this man live ? 7. Well if you are then I do no longer support this war against terror, why becouse this man have power and he will use it even though he is in prison he killed so many people who did not do anything so why let him live ? and the others terror croups will get stronger. 8. Maybe this is all ruppish from my mouth becouse I do not understand all of this well enough. So me In my little Iceland , well I am lucky to get a change to live here In peace but to hear every day that some where in the world is a war and this and that is killed by him or what ever and why ????? Is there a reason for all this? Can anybody tell me that. Good and evil Will always be around us , right . That is so sad, just amoment ago I talking about killing him so thats make no better than he is or those who are fighting thouse war. Well these are just a little thoughts witch goes through my mind right now. So sorry if I am hurting anyone, All my love to all of you my freinds and If I am not back on mudcat then Merry Christmass and Happy new year from us in little Iceland (warmland) is not cold anymore . All the best Skarpi Iceland. |
|
15 Dec 03 - 11:27 PM (#1073223) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: khandu Because he is insane; but so are many others in this mad "war against terrorism"! k |
|
15 Dec 03 - 11:38 PM (#1073230) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: Bobert On both sides ot the war..... Terrorism is just a nifty label that means absolutely nothing at all... One sides terrorist is the other sides freedom fighter... It's all insane and much of it could have been avoided if the US had a foriegn policy based on pro-humanism rather than testesterone... We need a change... Bobert |
|
15 Dec 03 - 11:39 PM (#1073231) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: mg I can't answer your questions. I don't know why he didn't see the writing on the wall and flee to another country. But thank God he is captured. The U.S. will let him live long enough to get a trial, and the Iraquis will most likely sentence him to death. I hope that it is a merciful death and I think we will insist on that. For the sake of the world, and particularly for the sake of those he tortured, he needs to make his peace with his creator, and leave this world. I think the simple answer is that he is insane, and a sane person, even one who wanted a palatial lifestyle, would have done as you said and built the roads, schools etc....in addition to all his palaces. What I don't get is the total lack of comment about this event..it is truly monumental...I have not heard one person in real life even mention it..although look at what it means to 25 million people..some of whom undoubtedly share his desire to enslave and abuse others...but they are a very small minority I am sure. Why are we not rejoicing? I am baffled. Go to the drudge report and read Andrew Sullivan and Peggy Noonan...mg |
|
15 Dec 03 - 11:40 PM (#1073233) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: GUEST Skarpi, I think you understand it as well as any normal person can. Many of us cannot grasp greed & megolamania such as Sadam exhibited. He cared not one iota for his people or their suffering, or the kurds which he had gassed. Power drives some men to madness & erases their humanity. Some may be sociopaths and/or amoral. His sons were less then human also. Why he didn't fight or kill himself? My guess-if he fought-he knew he'd be killed. Suicide takes courage. He may be delusional-perhaps he thinks he will somehow prevail. Skarpi, Glad you are safe there. Wish we all were. I don't think it would be wise for the coalition to end this with a death sentence. Somehow his own people must decide his fate, IMO. |
|
15 Dec 03 - 11:44 PM (#1073236) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: GUEST,Mickey191 The above is mine--nee to get a cookie. |
|
15 Dec 03 - 11:48 PM (#1073237) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: Mickey191 Guest at 11:40pm is my post. |
|
16 Dec 03 - 12:06 AM (#1073252) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: Amos Skarpi: We can let him live because his first offenses were against his own people and they should try him at the national level of Iraq; I think that is the only way they can finally step clear of this part of their history. Unfortunately, this is also what Bush says. If he had fought he would have been cut down -- when they opened his hiding place one of the soldiers had an armed grenade ready to throw in. We don't randomly kill prisoners once they've surrendered, as a rule. A |
|
16 Dec 03 - 12:57 AM (#1073277) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: Peace Saddam Hussein is human. That doesn't speak well of the human race, but we do manage to produce some very sick puppies. I would guess he'll hope to get life in prison, maybe with a few squares a day and the possibility of parole, escape or release. Have some of his followers hold hostages and shoot one an hour until he's let out. The hope of eventually achieving a scenario of that nature certainly would appeal to him more than his death. I agree that his own people should determine his fate. Maybe, allow the Kurds to put him on trial. There likely wouldn't be any need of a second trial. Just a thought. |
|
16 Dec 03 - 12:57 AM (#1073278) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: Cluin None of us knows for sure the answers to your questions, skarpi. It's hard to understand someone like Saddam. Perhaps he thought if he'd stick it out, not leave Iraq and hide in his little hole long enough, the U.S. would become bored or tired of looking for him. He and his kind have long held the U.S. and its military in contempt, it is known. Maybe he thought he was smarter or better than his foes and could eventually crawl out from under his rock and return to power when they were gone or not looking. That's kind of what happened last time. I am glad they got him and am interested to see what course justice will take now. I hope, like others here, he will have to answer for his crimes in Iraq to his own people. They would likely treat him worse than the U.S. would. |
|
16 Dec 03 - 04:41 AM (#1073338) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: Dave Bryant I reckon that Saddam hopes that he might save his neck (or at least prolong his life) if he plays ball with Bush (and Blair) and helps them to provide some sort of evidence, false or otherwise, that he did have WMDs and that they were justified in invading Iraq on those grounds. |
|
16 Dec 03 - 04:57 AM (#1073343) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: The_one_and_only_Dai As a side issue - I noticed on the news last night a politician referred to as a member of the national assembly of Kurdistan... When, exactly, did Kurdistan become a country? Surely our leaders haven't slipped another disastrous and dishonest partition of an Arab country in, like we and the French did in 1919? (Well, it was the French's idea actually, so therefore their fault) Perhaps someone up top has noticed how well the process of Balkanisation works... sheesh |
|
16 Dec 03 - 05:43 AM (#1073360) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: McGrath of Harlow "One sides terrorist is the other sides freedom fighter..." People are always saying that. In a sense it's true, because the word "terrorist" is used in that sense as a political token, and so is "freedom fighter". I think it is better to try to hold to the definition in which a "terrorist" is someone who engages in or organises acts of terrorism, and terrorism means causing death and detruction to the civilian population as a way of achuieving political or military ends. Under this understanding of what "terrorismn" is, it is irrelevant whether the people involved are doing this as paramiitaries or as member of the armed forces is in itself irrelevant. "Freedom fighter" who resort to this are acting as terrorists. When they engage in acts of war directed at an occupying army, they are not. The same conversely applies to member of an occupying army. |
|
16 Dec 03 - 07:37 AM (#1073434) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: GUEST Mary makes an interesting point--no one I encountered at work yesterday (and I encounter hundreds of people a day) or socially (holiday party after work), mentioned Saddam or his capture. Of course, one would never know that watching the cable news network hysteria. I don't think anyone really cares much one way or the other, except for maybe some folks in the military. It has been a long time since the "end of hostilities" (ahem) and this seems to be just a blip on the radar now. People are busy with holiday planning, winter storms, etc. and not really paying any attention to the news. And as for all the cable news media whores dire predictions about the demise of Dean due to the capture of Saddam...yawn. |
|
16 Dec 03 - 07:51 AM (#1073445) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: Mr Red I heard an interview with one of his Gulf war sidekicks who said when he visited the Iran border during those hostilities (moral builder for the troups?) he instructed one of his guards to be prepared to shoot him if capture was imminent. Says a lot for his opinion of Iranian methodology and how he thinks the US troups/world opinion would work. He is a strategist. He was treated pretty physically and brutally by his stepfather so a bit of discomfort/humiliation is not a problem he is unfamiliar with. He Trusts the US to keep him alive or at least string-out the process till the next but one election. He is that devious - the evidence is there. BUT TORTURE - that could go on for ever - and hurt forever. Now we all remember the stories of Edward the Second don't we? Those who have forgotten have a choice of myths. But both involve a red hot poker. I think EII's crimes were as nothing by comparison and it will prove we have come a long way. History is about to happen. |
|
16 Dec 03 - 08:06 AM (#1073452) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: SINSULL Re: building roads, etc. I believe he did spend a great deal of money on education and raising the standard of living for the very poor. The average Iraqi did have fresh water and electricity before we freed them. And it is this side of Saddam which keeps at least some of the population loyal to him. I wonder why he didn't commit suicide. Of course, Peron and Napolean staged come backs. Perhaps he is planning his. |
|
16 Dec 03 - 08:21 AM (#1073464) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: GUEST Although I don't think it likely that Saddam will escape his captors, with the current security situation in Iraq, and the fact that the US troops are surrounded by Arabs who hate them, I wouldn't put an escape, or at least an attempted one, beyond possibility. But I'd still like to hear about other people's experiences yesterday. Did people encounter many discussions of Saddam as they went about their business yesterday, or have your experiences been similar to Mary's and mine? |
|
16 Dec 03 - 08:55 AM (#1073487) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: Amos I heard a dozen people discussing it through the course of the day. Dumblandia? A |
|
16 Dec 03 - 09:20 AM (#1073508) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: Bobert Well, a thought did occur to me yesterday about what is likely to happen to Saddam. Being somewhat cynical to the occupiers of the US government, he will become a major player in the '04 election as trials dates and witness testamony will be manipulated skillfully by Bush PR folks. With Diebold countin' the votes and Saddam news front and center, night and night leadin' up to the election, I'm fearin' that Bush will be reselected. Also, related to my cynicism. Has anyone, other than me, wondered why Saddam was shaved and cleaned up so quickly? My theory is that the bearded, dirty and rather pathetic looking Saddam did not fill the Boggieman role that Bush's folks need in their PR campaign... As for discussions, Amos, I'm really not out in the world as much since retiring but I did spend an hour at the local coffee shop and Saddam did not come up... Bobert |
|
16 Dec 03 - 09:54 AM (#1073539) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: CarolC Why are people in the US and Britain so much more emotionally invested in the demise of Saddam, than, say, Idi Amin, or the Shah of Iran, or other despicable despots of their stripe? The answer is oil. Nothing more, nothing less. |
|
16 Dec 03 - 10:52 AM (#1073706) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: GUEST Actually, I'm wondering when Saddam was actually captured. I found his capture coming the same week as the Halliburton scandal a bit too coincidentally convenient for the Shrub regime. I agree Carol C. The answer is oil, and that they were our bastards until their being deposed by their own people. |
|
16 Dec 03 - 11:41 AM (#1073758) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: DougR The same old tired statements to Skarpi's questions. Skarpi, Saddam is a tyrant and his crimes will be paraded so that all can see when the Iraqi people try him in a court of law. No place, Skarpi, is totally safe from terrorism. Bobert doesn't appear to believe it exists, but he may find that it even is possible for terrorists to attack some location in West Virginia. Even that probably would not convince him. He would find a way to blame Bush probably. :>) DougR |
|
16 Dec 03 - 11:42 AM (#1073760) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: GUEST If the answer was oil they would have taken Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. If you found his capture coincidentally convenient, I take it that you subscribe to the great conspiracy theory that put Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Lord Lucan and Shergar all tucked away on a remote ranch somewhere in order that they could produced on order, to help the Republicans, sorry Neo-Cons win the next US election. But wait up a bit, aren't you the same crowd that's telling us it is already fixed so in actual fact there is no need to pull these publicity stunts, there's no need for George W Bush to raise campaign funds, there's no need for him to respond to any situation - it's already a done deal - that's what you keep telling us. You know what? - Don't believe you. |
|
16 Dec 03 - 02:22 PM (#1073888) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: CarolC GUEST, Date: 16 Dec 03 - 11:42 AM, silly goose! They already have Kuwait and Saudi Arabia! |
|
16 Dec 03 - 02:27 PM (#1073894) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: GUEST And Iraq. And Afghanistan. We now have nearly our entire military stationed in the Middle East. Hmmmmm... |
|
16 Dec 03 - 02:35 PM (#1073900) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: Donuel He didn't look right to me, thats the ticket, give him a Ticket to ride He said that livin in holes was getting him down....yeah He will never be free with the US around He went to Tikrit to hi ide He went to Tiktit to hi i ide He went to Tikrit to hide and he don't care Thats right he don't care They said he didn't put up a fight he didn't look right , he didn't look right, to me Bush is feelin outright delight like Dudly DoRight, like Dudly DoRight he seems. He said that livin in holes was getting him down....yeah Iraq will never be free with the US around He went to Tikrit to hi ide He went to Tiktit to hi i ide He went to Tikrit to hide and he don't care Saddam he don't care Maybe we should set him free on 1 Trillion dollar cash bail from his Swiss accounts. |
|
16 Dec 03 - 02:59 PM (#1073918) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: Nerd Actually, GUEST, if the motive were really the eradication of terrorism, THEN we'd go after Saudi Arabia. As it is now, Saudis supply nearly all the money and much o the manpower that goes into radical Islamic terrorism, starting with Osama Bin Laden. Right now, our oil companies do a lot of business with the Saudis, so our government for the most part leaves the Saudis alone. But the Saudi government is in an unholy alliance with Wahabi extremists. The extremists allow the corrupt house of Saud to run the government, and in return the Saudi government gives them billions which go to fund anti-US terrorism. We tolerate this because we are addicted to Saudi oil. The sad thing is that changing Iraq will do almost nothing to stop terrorism. It may, however, mean that it's someone else's money going to kill us. |
|
16 Dec 03 - 03:12 PM (#1073926) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: Art Thieme Skarpi, I genuinely like you although we have never met. You are a good man I think. All of us have the same feelings that you have expressed---to a greater or a lesser degree. That is the paradox---and eveything, every action, has two sides--a yin and a yang--good and bad results. Either that, or there really is no good or bad, in nature or in this universe, and it's just up to us to work things out. As an individual, I strive, personally, to lean toward the light and avoid the darker way as often as I am able. BUT as nations, all of these choices carry such a far-reaching and devastating effect on so very many that it is impossible for me to see how some leaders can know so seemingly clearly that their actions are on the proper side of the ledger. As I've said here, my favorite definition of power is The extent to which you can inconvenience others. Another of my favorite soundbites is: A person will die for an idea, provided that idea isn't quite clear to him or her. It does seem to me that we have too many folks walking around without being able to see any further than their own noses. It's always good to hear your ideas from Iceland. Thanks so much for gracing us with the simple clarities of your own wisdom. Art Thieme |
|
17 Dec 03 - 12:28 AM (#1074272) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: GUEST I live in Pittsburgh. I am not afraid of terrorists. Most people outside of the United States don't know that Pittsurgh exists, and if they do, they don't know where it is. Many people inside the United States don't know where Pittsburgh is. |
|
17 Dec 03 - 03:11 AM (#1074310) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: GUEST Quite right Guest from Pittsburgh, Al-Qaeda did their homework prior to 911, they had a good look at Pittsburgh and came to the conclusion that some other group had bombed it already. |
|
17 Dec 03 - 06:45 AM (#1074377) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: GUEST,Boab Well-----now that it has been seen by all just what a miserable state Saddam Hussein has been in, what a miserable, filthy, unwholesome little dungeon he has been obliged to occupy, I wonder how many are inclined to believe, like me, that it is a pity, in fact, that he was discovered at all at this stage. I would bet my last material possession that , if the guy is allowed to live to be incarcerated, his cell will be a palace compared to the den in whch he has of late been forced to live. In other words, his punishment would fittingly have been the perpetuation of his confinement in his dismal hole in the ground. To all who ar not completely blinded however, by whichever red-white-and-blue rag they happen to worship, it is blindingly obvious that Hussein MUST be silenced. Bush has already made plain his over-riding desire for the death of Saddam--which, coming from the present-day champion of judicial killers, is quite unsurprising. |
|
17 Dec 03 - 07:15 AM (#1074394) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: Dave Bryant There is a famous arabian (although I've also heard it attributed to Alexander the Great) story. Nasrudin was caught in the act and sentenced to die. Hauled up before the king, he was asked by the Royal Presence: "Is there any reason at all why I shouldn't have your head off right now?" To which he replied: "Oh, King, live forever! Know that I, the mullah Nasrudin, am the greatest teacher in your kingdom, and it would surely be a waste to kill such a great teacher. So skilled am I that I could even teach your favorite horse to sing, given a year to work on it." The king was amused, and said: "Very well then, you move into the stable immediately, and if the horse isn't singing a year from now, we'll think of something interesting to do with you." As he was returning to his cell to pick up his spare rags, his cellmate remonstrated with him: "Now that was really stupid. You know you can't teach that horse to sing, no matter how long you try." Nasrudin's response: "Not at all. I have a year now that I didn't have before. And a lot of things can happen in a year. The king might die. The horse might die. I might die. "And, who knows? Maybe the horse will sing." For many years Saddam showed himself to be a master of brinkmanship, I'm sure he still has those skills. |
|
17 Dec 03 - 07:16 AM (#1074395) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: NH Dave re:Kurdistan It is my understanding that the Kurdish area of Iraq were so glad to see the liberating/occupying/oppressing troops, pick a modifier depending on your bent, arrive, provided that the troops were NOT Turkish, that they have been supporting them in many ways. With this cooperation in place, they have formed a government for the area of Iraq that they control/occupy, mostly the northern and northwestern parts of the country, and are doing quite well so far. About all they want is freedom from Iraqi rule/despotism, and protection from similar "benevolent" attention from the Turks, who oppose a Kurdish homeland as it might mean the secession of Kurdish Turkey into this new homeland. One reason for this opposition is the numerous tapped and untapped oil resources in this region. In this vein, I might also note that we displaced the Cherokee tribe from their native homelands in our southeast to "barren" lands few wanted in out central west, until oil was discovered on their lands. Fortunaely many of these peoples were able to retain their land, oil and all. Dave |
|
17 Dec 03 - 08:14 AM (#1074435) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: Wolfgang To all who are not blinded....it is blindingly obvious You made me smile, Boab. Wolfgang |
|
17 Dec 03 - 11:36 AM (#1074558) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: Dave Bryant That bolt-hole would go for a lot of money if it was in central London ! |
|
17 Dec 03 - 01:28 PM (#1074649) Subject: RE: BS: Why Saddam did not .......... From: McGrath of Harlow It seems rather likely that hole in the ground was a hiding place to be used temporarily while the premises was being searched, like a priest's hole. The sneaky thing might have been not to let on they'd found him, but just to have put a military post right bang on the spot, ready for when he chose to come out. Or even park a tank on top of it. |