Saddam Hussein Captured
-
Jack Chiefton
- Old Skool Pax
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 9:01 am
- Location: Madison, WI
Saddam Hussein Captured
Saddam Hussein was captured just outside his home village of Tikrit earlier this morning (Wisconsin time). He was found in a small dungeon like basement sporting a full beard and long curly hair. He looked very tired. And since I can't get the poll option to work, I'll state my question here and see what everyone thinks. Will this bring a swifter end to the carnage?
-
Tommy Martyn
- Mile High Club
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 8:01 am
- Location: a desk
-
mccutcheon
- New York Scribbler
- Posts: 4996
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2000 8:01 am
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Well sure, it's a good thing, but I hardly think it'll hasten the end of the war. I remain puzzled as to why our goals always center around capturing the "top man" or "top men" in some evil operation Osama, etc. Al-Qaida can spring up anywhere anytime. They don't need Osama. The whole cowboy capture of the top man idea may make some people feel secure or heroic, but it doesn't make me feel safer. Then again, the war on terrorism is fought behind a veil of intelligence and secrecy. There's probably little chance we have a good idea of just how well it might be going.
Speaking of fear, I'm watching Bowling For Columbine today for the first time. Someone had mentioned it in my philosophy class and I figured I'd let it go too long without seeing it. Only problem I have with it is he gives the impression there as many black people in the U.S. as Canada and when I was in Vancouver, I saw very little. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on the statistics.
In any case, it's sad Howard Dean is for guns. But I can't see how another Dem candidate stands a chance now.
Anyway, BTW, Tommy, you have one hell of a cute kid. I'm not normally the first to go ga-ga at babies or kids but jeez, I was touched.
Speaking of fear, I'm watching Bowling For Columbine today for the first time. Someone had mentioned it in my philosophy class and I figured I'd let it go too long without seeing it. Only problem I have with it is he gives the impression there as many black people in the U.S. as Canada and when I was in Vancouver, I saw very little. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on the statistics.
In any case, it's sad Howard Dean is for guns. But I can't see how another Dem candidate stands a chance now.
Anyway, BTW, Tommy, you have one hell of a cute kid. I'm not normally the first to go ga-ga at babies or kids but jeez, I was touched.
The downside is that Americans have died and Iraqis have died and will continue to die. His capture only proves that Iraq was never a threat to world peace to begin with.
What's more, he was not discovered by American intelligence, he was turned in by close friends for $25 million. Judging by the look of him, they probably did this out of pity for him.
All in all though, nobody is going to cry that he was captured... he was a murderous thug backed up by the CIA to keep the region in conflict and the cheap oil flowing.
Since I know I am gonna be flamed for this... please read this article before you attack my lack of entuhsiasm for the events which just passed.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html
Furthermore, I would venture that VERY FEW of the people who have been killing our boys and the moderates over there were doing it to get Saddam back. Nobody wanted that asshole back any more than the Russians want another Stalin back.
All Iraq is going to get of out this...is a new dictator that the USA will choose for them again. I hope they get George W Bush Jr. For Vice President I nominate Simon Rex.
What's more, he was not discovered by American intelligence, he was turned in by close friends for $25 million. Judging by the look of him, they probably did this out of pity for him.
All in all though, nobody is going to cry that he was captured... he was a murderous thug backed up by the CIA to keep the region in conflict and the cheap oil flowing.
Since I know I am gonna be flamed for this... please read this article before you attack my lack of entuhsiasm for the events which just passed.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html
Furthermore, I would venture that VERY FEW of the people who have been killing our boys and the moderates over there were doing it to get Saddam back. Nobody wanted that asshole back any more than the Russians want another Stalin back.
All Iraq is going to get of out this...is a new dictator that the USA will choose for them again. I hope they get George W Bush Jr. For Vice President I nominate Simon Rex.
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons Of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if They had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to Invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government Passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being
communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a Legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by Forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an Illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a Good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for Growing flowers, that was OK, but not if hey cut people's heads and Hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the
penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except For her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of Patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her Eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to Support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French Fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't Do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade...
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American Corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attached Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head.
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works, Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Goodnight.
Goodnight daddy.
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons Of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if They had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to Invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government Passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being
communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a Legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by Forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an Illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a Good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for Growing flowers, that was OK, but not if hey cut people's heads and Hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the
penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except For her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of Patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her Eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to Support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French Fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't Do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade...
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American Corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attached Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head.
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works, Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Goodnight.
Goodnight daddy.
-
Tommy Martyn
- Mile High Club
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 8:01 am
- Location: a desk
we're all discussing the question: is it good that saddam was caught?, which of course is a sterile question or at least a rhetorical question, because we all know the answer.
what interests me is this: what does it mean that saddam was caught?
from his appearance and from the looks of his hideout, he wasn't leading the insurgence against the u.s.
will the insurgence end now that he was caught? perhaps it will. but if it doesn't, this points towards a strong anti-u.s. movement in iraq that does not depend on saddam.
now that bush nabbed saddam, does it mean that the war was a just cause?
well, why should it? would nabbing castro justify an invasion of cuba? (i know, saddam is a meaner murderer, but where's the significant as opposed to numerical difference?)
what interests me is this: what does it mean that saddam was caught?
from his appearance and from the looks of his hideout, he wasn't leading the insurgence against the u.s.
will the insurgence end now that he was caught? perhaps it will. but if it doesn't, this points towards a strong anti-u.s. movement in iraq that does not depend on saddam.
now that bush nabbed saddam, does it mean that the war was a just cause?
well, why should it? would nabbing castro justify an invasion of cuba? (i know, saddam is a meaner murderer, but where's the significant as opposed to numerical difference?)
-
Jack Chiefton
- Old Skool Pax
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 9:01 am
- Location: Madison, WI
well...
I believe my "rhetorical" question was answered a few hours after I had listed it: Explosions, gunfights, and more death in and outside of Baghdad.
Expounding on Mc's observation of whether we caught santy clause or Saddam: Why don't we dye Saddam's beard and hair white, and force him to be Santy Clause in a New York city mall? All the little spoiled rugrats pissing on his lap and pulling on his beard would make for quite a punishment. And then we could send him on tour of the United States and he could visit every mall from New York to Los Angeles and get slapped by every little spoiled brat in this country. And then we'll send him back to Iraq and let them deal with him. By that time he'd probably wish he were dead.
Expounding on Mc's observation of whether we caught santy clause or Saddam: Why don't we dye Saddam's beard and hair white, and force him to be Santy Clause in a New York city mall? All the little spoiled rugrats pissing on his lap and pulling on his beard would make for quite a punishment. And then we could send him on tour of the United States and he could visit every mall from New York to Los Angeles and get slapped by every little spoiled brat in this country. And then we'll send him back to Iraq and let them deal with him. By that time he'd probably wish he were dead.
Upon further reflection I think the capture of Saddam might be as big a victory as the Americans want it to be.
I read the soldier(s) who captured him was about to drop a grenade down the spider hole when he came up and surrendered.
Taking Saddam alive means there is no blood lust, and furthers the cause that America is "trying to do the right thing".
REAL AMERICANS - n - definition: People willing to pay billions of dollars of their own money and even give up their own lives if necessary so largely unappreciative people in other countries can be "free".
FREE - adj - definition: Allowed to do whatever you want so long as the average moderate Republican would approve.
I read the soldier(s) who captured him was about to drop a grenade down the spider hole when he came up and surrendered.
Taking Saddam alive means there is no blood lust, and furthers the cause that America is "trying to do the right thing".
REAL AMERICANS - n - definition: People willing to pay billions of dollars of their own money and even give up their own lives if necessary so largely unappreciative people in other countries can be "free".
FREE - adj - definition: Allowed to do whatever you want so long as the average moderate Republican would approve.
Yeah for real. I want to know why democrats seem to think the only way to win elections now is to become closet republicans. I mean, haven't democrats been winning elections for over a hundred years by simply being democrats? Am I just deluded? Didn't Gore win the popular vote? I wouldn't have called him a closet Republican, even if others would. No, it's not necessary to be a major liberal radical, but on the other hand, I think any candidate that talks about health care for example and wants to do something huge with it, could win. States are revolting about Canadian drugs. The support is out there.
Tommy I meant your brother of course, la'. Isn't that what the Oasis brothers call each other, 'kid'? Yeah, your brother's a big baby.
Martino...so grumpy he can't think straight. Not sure what that means, exactly.
Jack, I must admit I'm entertained by the idea of sending Saddam into forced Santa Claus duty. What does Mav think? Have we got a Hollywood script in the making?
Sloth, I'm not so sure everyone in Iraq was truly against Saddam. The article I read pointed to mixed opinions, with some crying because they loved him, and were so disappointed that he didn't fight back or take the suicide martyr route. These people weren't necessarily the same that make up bands of guerillas killing U.S. soldiers. This is the middle east. We must face the fact that some were actually for Saddam. Some of them say well, at least they had food, water, electricity, and medical care under his rule and were actually hoping he'd come back to power. In the absence of that possibility, the U.S. has to deal with not only the radical violent Saddam loyalists, but fundamentalist Islam types that may have come into the country merely to fight against Americans. Who are we to say that Saddam's wimp-out (by Islamic and nationalist standards) won't embolden them all? And what are those that just want something to eat and drink going to do if we don't deliver?
Certainly shutting other countries out of bidding means we don't want to get the job done at the best possible price.
We're bumbling, people. BUMBLING.
Tommy I meant your brother of course, la'. Isn't that what the Oasis brothers call each other, 'kid'? Yeah, your brother's a big baby.
Martino...so grumpy he can't think straight. Not sure what that means, exactly.
Jack, I must admit I'm entertained by the idea of sending Saddam into forced Santa Claus duty. What does Mav think? Have we got a Hollywood script in the making?
Sloth, I'm not so sure everyone in Iraq was truly against Saddam. The article I read pointed to mixed opinions, with some crying because they loved him, and were so disappointed that he didn't fight back or take the suicide martyr route. These people weren't necessarily the same that make up bands of guerillas killing U.S. soldiers. This is the middle east. We must face the fact that some were actually for Saddam. Some of them say well, at least they had food, water, electricity, and medical care under his rule and were actually hoping he'd come back to power. In the absence of that possibility, the U.S. has to deal with not only the radical violent Saddam loyalists, but fundamentalist Islam types that may have come into the country merely to fight against Americans. Who are we to say that Saddam's wimp-out (by Islamic and nationalist standards) won't embolden them all? And what are those that just want something to eat and drink going to do if we don't deliver?
Certainly shutting other countries out of bidding means we don't want to get the job done at the best possible price.
We're bumbling, people. BUMBLING.