Saddam Caught?

[nutsak]

http://www.yahoo.com/s/135781/*http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_saddam&cid=540&ncid=716


Just found this on another set of forums I watch.. I havn't seen the link yet cuz my idal up is been shitty.. but let's hope it's true eh?...

[Dirt]

Fuck Saddam. Where's Osama?

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3317429.stm

BBC says 'arrested', and Blair has confirmed it, so it's most likely true.

This is all very interesting.

Fuck Saddam. Where's Osama?
Come on, man. Come on.

[Anders Hallin]

So do people think this will affect the fighting? Because I guess that's the biggest thing. Will hopefully make some people realize that they lost, but some parts of "the resistance" is apparently not loyal to the former regime, so they won't quit.

Will he be tried in the Hague or will the US nab him and maybe do a big thing about frying him?
Might be a good thing to show dictators that they're not free from certain laws, but considering the way this war was handled, it doesn't have quite the symbolic value it could.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

So do people think this will affect the fighting? Because I guess that's the biggest thing. Will hopefully make some people realize that they lost, but some parts of "the resistance" is apparently not loyal to the former regime, so they won't quit.
It's pretty hard to predict what's going to happen, I think.

Will he be tried in the Hague or will the US nab him and maybe do a big thing about frying him?
Show trial! Show trial! His fried head on a plate!

[marxeil]

Show trial! Show trial! His fried head on a plate!
And why not? How do you think his case should be handeled. His actions fall under the definition of crimes against humanity, and he should be prosecuted accordingly.

[nutsak]

"Next on Judge Judy

He's an evil tyrant that hordes weapons of mass destruction....
"


.. yeh, the trial would be good... but only if it's made into a series... hosted by ... um.. Al Rocer* from the NBC today show..



(* not sure of the spelling.. but.. you know. .the weatherman..)

[Gramuxius]

Will he be tried in the Hague or will the US nab him and maybe do a big thing about frying him?
Show trial! Show trial! His fried head on a plate!

Seeing as how they like to mention how bad he was for the last decades, I doubt they want to have him tell just where he got those chemicals and spores.

[marxeil]

Seeing as how they like to mention how bad he was for the last decades, I doubt they want to have him tell just where he got those chemicals and spores.
Or where he stashed it.

[Anders Hallin]

It's pretty hard to predict what's going to happen, I think.
No doubt, no doubt.
It's fun to try predicting things though.
And while I don't think this arrest will mean that much at first, I think overall it makes the process in Iraq easier.


Show trial! Show trial! His fried head on a plate!
And why not? How do you think his case should be handeled. His actions fall under the definition of crimes against humanity, and he should be prosecuted accordingly.
So for serious crimes we shouldn't expect due process? That's rather absurd.
There's no reason to make this a show trial, I think the evidence will speak for itself.

[MattKeil]

"We got 'im."

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20031214/D7VE63CO0.html?PG=home&SEC=news

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Show trial! Show trial! His fried head on a plate!
And why not? How do you think his case should be handeled. His actions fall under the definition of crimes against humanity, and he should be prosecuted accordingly.
So for serious crimes we shouldn't expect due process? That's rather absurd.
There's no reason to make this a show trial, I think the evidence will speak for itself.

What he said. You do know what a show trial is, right?
"The defendant, after a mere 231 days of interrogation by fearless Homeland Defence personnell, has pleaded guilty to masterminding the attacks of 11th September, possessing enormous amounts of WMD, and planning to take over the world repeatedly. He says that ultimately, he understands why the heroic and noble American President had to stop him."

Ah yes, I can just see it now...

[DrCrypt]

Seeing as how they like to mention how bad he was for the last decades, I doubt they want to have him tell just where he got those chemicals and spores.
You mean primarily from Continental (www.iraqwatch.org/bulletins/vol2iss1jan03.htm) Europe (www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EB05Ak02.html)? Hell, according to those links, Germany alone is responsible for supplying more than half of Iraq's duel-use equipment over the last couple of decades. Yes, that certainly will be interesting.

I know what you're saying, of course - insiduous back alley deals where the US sold all of its patented baby-murder gas to Saddam Hussein, which might actually have been made of vaporized dead babies, cyanide crystals and the black, bubbling semen George Bush regurgitated from his own stomach after the US gave a bitching roofie to Satan himself. Trust me, I'm with you, my man: as I've proven time and time again as a Jedi Knight in KOTOR, I will stop at nothing to thwart the Sith, or their puppet govenments such as the United States of America. However, it is disappointing, in that case, that the US's contributions to the Iraqi weapons program seem to mostly involve things like computers and vacuum tubes, where as Germany (a European Republic) directly provided "important components for the production of poison gas" and various missile parts. Hopefully, after my recent successes on Manaan, I will be called at the Hague as Saddam's official arbiter just so I can Force Persuade the judges in favor of the greater good: America is, as usual, all to blame. May the force be with you.

[marxeil]

Show trial! Show trial! His fried head on a plate!
And why not? How do you think his case should be handeled. His actions fall under the definition of crimes against humanity, and he should be prosecuted accordingly.
So for serious crimes we shouldn't expect due process? That's rather absurd.
There's no reason to make this a show trial, I think the evidence will speak for itself.

What he said. You do know what a show trial is, right?
"The defendant, after a mere 231 days of interrogation by fearless Homeland Defence personnell, has pleaded guilty to masterminding the attacks of 11th September, possessing enormous amounts of WMD, and planning to take over the world repeatedly. He says that ultimately, he understands why the heroic and noble American President had to stop him."

Ah yes, I can just see it now...
Sorry, I didn't. I thought you meant that the trial will be made public and open for all or somehting like that. Of course it should be done by the book.
As to what will happen, I expect something like the Miloshevitz trial http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3046689.stm. He doesn't seem to repent his evil doings very much.

[Gramuxius]

<Rant>

Now, now. I didn't claim that Europe wasn't in on the deal. After all, we've got centuries more experience at being bastards than that upstart US. It's just annoying that nobody seems to remember that this guy was "our man", for both western Europe and the US, just a little over a decade ago. And then, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, everyone suddenly discovered how evil he was?

But that's just international politics as usual, I guess.

[Bub, Andrew]

They're saying he'll be tried in Iraq. Celebrations are erupting all over Iraq. Did you see the Iraq journalists stand up and emotionally mock the video of Saddam's medical examination?

No matter what side of the war you fall on, there's no doubt the kind of man and leader Hussain is.

This is a pretty damn great victory for the Iraqi people.

[Qenan]

The NYT piece seemed to indicate they hadn't decided whether to hand him over to a recently created Iraqi war crimes tribunal.

I hope this will end the resistance, but I'm betting it won't.

[Mark Asher]

Man, he didn't have much of a hideout, just a 6x8 hole in the ground.

Great news that we caught him. I'd actually sort of forgotten about him. Now if we could grab Osama too, Bush would have a very nice Christmas.

[Bub, Andrew]

The NYT piece seemed to indicate they hadn't decided whether to hand him over to a recently created Iraqi war crimes tribunal.

I hope this will end the resistance, but I'm betting it won't.

It could cause some defections in the insurgency. I heard (on ABC) that the military is going to offer clemency to any insurgents who want to surrender. If Saddam was holding some sway, this could weaken it. But I agree, the attacks will continue for a while.

Man, he didn't have much of a hideout, just a 6x8 hole in the ground.

All the facts aren't in but I heard he's been moving around a lot. I think this hole was just one of many in that area and probably something he only used when we got really close.

[nutsak]

I'm actually wondering how long it will take for Osama to bring out another home video about this...

"release Sadam or I will do something really really evil!"

or something similar..

either way, I hope this shit doesn't flood the airwaves too long.

[Anders Hallin]

"release Sadam or I will do something really really evil!"
Why would he do that?

[Woolen Horde]

Fuckin' A! About time!

[Bub, Andrew]

"If you are incapable of feeling at least a tiny amount of joy at watching ordinary Iraqis celebrate this, you are lost to the ideological left. If you are incapable of feeling badly that we even had to use force in the first place, you are ideologically lost to the right."

-Jon Stewart (the quote refers to the day Baghdad was liberated)

[Stroker Ace]

bin laden is obviously going to be "found" hiding in a hole a few weeks before election '04.

/tinfoilhat

[nutsak]

"release Sadam or I will do something really really evil!"
Why would he do that?

Because he's an attention seeking whore? Actually, Someone just said that Saddam had links to Al-Quaeda on the news... so I was kind of guessing that Osama might try something really really stupid... like what I wrote.

--- addition:
Just saw this @ cnn.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
• Former Iraqi president was wearing pistol but did not fire it
• Saddam being interrogated at undisclosed location
• 600 U.S. troops staged lightning raid on rural hiding place
• Saddam was "very disoriented" at the time of his capture
---------------------------------------------------------------------
What a pussy this guy is, he should have easily defeated 600 troops with his mighty sidearm! ... I wonder why he seemed disoriented.

[Tyjenks]

And our 2004 president is...........

[awdougherty]

... Saddam Hussein! Well, only if that Senator gets off his ass and steamrolls that amendment intended for Ahnold. Come on, make it happen! The democrats need a candidate with a genuine fire under his ass to see Bush out of the White House. Hussein just might be that candidate.

[Rywill]

And our 2004 president is...........
Ain't that the truth. I'm glad we caught Saddam anyway, though. Also, kudos to those who greeted this terrific development with "Oh, who cares, we still haven't caught Osama."

We caught Osama too! Oh, really? Well, too bad there are still hungry people in Africa. And the damn light in my kitchen is still burned-out. America, you suck ass.

[Matthew Gallant]

I heard Saddam's one phone call was to Kenneth Lay to figure out how much in contributions he'd have to make.

[Dirt]

And our 2004 president is...........
Ain't that the truth. I'm glad we caught Saddam anyway, though. Also, kudos to those who greeted this terrific development with "Oh, who cares, we still haven't caught Osama."

We caught Osama too! Oh, really? Well, too bad there are still hungry people in Africa. And the damn light in my kitchen is still burned-out. America, you suck ass.

Nearly 3000 lives lost on 9/11 still cry out for justice. Justice Bush promised.

[Tyjenks]

And our 2004 president is...........
Ain't that the truth. I'm glad we caught Saddam anyway, though. Also, kudos to those who greeted this terrific development with "Oh, who cares, we still haven't caught Osama."

We caught Osama too! Oh, really? Well, too bad there are still hungry people in Africa. And the damn light in my kitchen is still burned-out. America, you suck ass.

I believe if America created peace and love between all the world's inhabitants and put 1 million dollars into each of our back accounts folks would say, "I did not ask you to help me get along with my fellow man or make me rich. You suck and president Bush is the anti-[insert politically correct deity here]!"

[Mark Asher]

And our 2004 president is...........

It's more about the economy than anything. If it continues to improve, Bush will probably win. If it doesn't get better, Bush will have a fight on his hands. Iraq's still a valid campaign issue, too.

[Dirt]

And our 2004 president is...........
Ain't that the truth. I'm glad we caught Saddam anyway, though. Also, kudos to those who greeted this terrific development with "Oh, who cares, we still haven't caught Osama."

We caught Osama too! Oh, really? Well, too bad there are still hungry people in Africa. And the damn light in my kitchen is still burned-out. America, you suck ass.

I believe if America created peace and love between all the world's inhabitants and put 1 million dollars into each of our back accounts folks would say, "I did not ask you to help me get along with my fellow man or make me rich. You suck and president Bush is the anti-[insert politically correct deity here]!"

The anti-pagan?

[Trixie]

I'm so glad that we've finally freed the Iraqi people from their terrible dictatorship. I look forward to seeing what country in distress Bush is going to swoop in and aid next.

What? Tibet has nothing we want? Screw that then...

(Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Saddam has been caught, but let's get rid of Bush's fake-ass front)

[Midnight Son]

Damn, he should have died in his bunker shortly after marrying his sweetheart, Eva Hussein.

[Rywill]

And our 2004 president is...........

It's more about the economy than anything. If it continues to improve, Bush will probably win. If it doesn't get better, Bush will have a fight on his hands. Iraq's still a valid campaign issue, too.
Maybe only because there's still a year to go. If the election were held next month or even the month after, I think Bush would ride this into an easy win. Even with the election being 11 months away, you know Bush is going to have a much easier time (especially with the Iraq issue) now that he's caught Hussein. The Dems' ability to portray him as a man who can't quite get the job done abroad (no Osama, no Hussein) just went out the window IMO. We'll see. I mean, I'd love to see him lose and will certainly vote against him, but this is a pretty big feather in his cap less than a year before the vote.

[Ben Sones]

Depends. If we still don't have the new Iraq running smoothly, and we still haven't found Bin Laden, then capturing Hussein may not give him as much credit as he probably hopes that it will. There's a lot of factors at work here, and the Democrats could make the prospects of ousting Bush a lot better if they could just stop all the childish infighting and offer up a halfway decent candidate. But that won't happen, so our best hope for getting rid of Bush is that he will continue to be his own worst enemy.

[Jason McCullough]

Seeing as how they like to mention how bad he was for the last decades, I doubt they want to have him tell just where he got those chemicals and spores.
You mean primarily from Continental (www.iraqwatch.org/bulletins/vol2iss1jan03.htm) Europe (www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EB05Ak02.html)? Hell, according to those links, Germany alone is responsible for supplying more than half of Iraq's duel-use equipment over the last couple of decades. Yes, that certainly will be interesting.

"Last couple of decades"? Convenient timeline, seeing how we were propping Saddam up by giving him money to buy those damn gas weapons to kill Iranians with back in the 1980s. Look, everyone's ethically fucked before '91, and weighing relative moral culpability here is as pointless an endeavor as assessing turds for quality.

That's a hilarious beard. Just hope it really is him.

No idea if the attacks will stop or not.

[Tyjenks]

And our 2004 president is...........

It's more about the economy than anything. If it continues to improve, Bush will probably win. If it doesn't get better, Bush will have a fight on his hands. Iraq's still a valid campaign issue, too.

I agree completely. If Saddam and Osama were never caught, but the economy continued its upswing I think it wouldn't have mattered what monkey in a suit the Dems. put up there. I, in fact, said as much in the Dean/Gore thread. Damn, Mark! I thought you read and committed to memory every person's posts on this board, especially mine as they pearls, each and every one.


.......the Democrats could make the prospects of ousting Bush a lot better if they could just stop all the childish infighting and offer up a halfway decent candidate. But that won't happen.....


That's why I have given up on the party in a nutshell. There is a lot of whining and mewling, but no strong candidates putting forth platforms that say much other than, "I will not do it like Bush has done it because he sucks."

[DennyA]

Did I miss something on the news? Did Bush personally capture Saddam when he was over there on Thanksgiving?

I think there are about 600 other guys who deserve the credit.

Shut down Osama and we'll talk. Saddam never killed any Americans on American soil. And it doesn't appear that he was in any danger of doing so in the next decade or two.

[Jason McCullough]

It's also possible for Iraq to crack up in a dozen different ways, so it isn't all cut-and-dried - remember when everyone thought Bush was re-elected the day after Baghdad fell? Reports the we're arming a bunch of domestic "militia" groups (INC, etc.) aren't encouraging, for one.

[Jason McCullough]

Of course, the chief reason for conservatives to happy today is that they get to call everyone who ever disagreed with them a lot of names.

http://www.instapundit.com/
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp

[DrCrypt]

Convenient timeline, seeing how we were propping Saddam up by giving him money to buy those damn gas weapons to kill Iranians with back in the 1980s.
Are you just trying to be a dick, or can you accept that I was including 1981 in a broad "couple of decades" timeline? In other words, assuming that 1980-1983 was implied by a swathe of time isn't yet another insidious conservative plot.

Anyway, as you would well know since it is one of your primary criticisms of the neoconservative mindset, politics isn't exactly a morally cut and dry thing. In 1981, Iran was perceived to be a bigger threat to the region than Saddam, and that meant supporting him to try to deal with the larger perceived threat. Still, giving Saddam some money in 1981, as morally questionable as it now seems (and was), isn't exactly as morally questionable in my mind with Germany handing over equipment to directly manufacture chemical munitions well within the UN sanction timetable.

[Tyjenks]

No. Bush did not have a thing to do with it much as he has nothing to do with the improving economy, but it was done. He is the acting president and to the lumbering voter out there who watches 30 secs. of news a week and that is only from the teases for their local news which are shown before he/she can grab the remote and change it, he might as well have.

[Squirrel Killer]

...Did Bush personally capture Saddam when he was over there on Thanksgiving? I think there are about 600 other guys who deserve the credit.

Shut down Osama and we'll talk. Saddam never killed any Americans on American soil...

By the very standard you set in your first couple sentences, neither Saddam nor Osama killed any Americans on American soil.

[Jason McCullough]

Convenient timeline, seeing how we were propping Saddam up by giving him money to buy those damn gas weapons to kill Iranians with back in the 1980s.
Are you just trying to be a dick, or can you accept that I was including 1981 in a broad "couple of decades" timeline? In other words, assuming that 1980-1983 was implied by a swathe of time isn't yet another insidious conservative plot.

Anyway, as you would well know since it is one of your primary criticisms of the neoconservative mindset, politics isn't exactly a morally cut and dry thing. In 1981, Iran was perceived to be a bigger threat to the region than Saddam, and that meant supporting him to try to deal with the larger perceived threat. Still, giving Saddam some money in 1981, as morally questionable as it now seems (and was), isn't exactly as morally questionable in my mind with Germany handing over equipment to directly manufacture chemical munitions well within the UN sanction timetable.

Ok. How about blocking the UN from condemning Iraq for using chemical weapons? How about the CIA helping Iraq use their chemical weapons more effectively?

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

Look, everyone fucked up good on Iraq.

[tromik]

http://members.rogers.com/tromik/saddam.html

I couldn't resist.

[Bob Cherub]

Nearly 3000 lives lost on 9/11 still cry out for justice. Justice Bush promised.

Yea, I think you're right. Bush gave up on trying to find Osama a long time ago. Bush is heartless to the victims of 9/11 and figures Osama just got away.

Sarcasm mode off. Dirt, you are a clueless fuck.

[Bob Cherub]

It's also possible for Iraq to crack up in a dozen different ways, so it isn't all cut-and-dried - remember when everyone thought Bush was re-elected the day after Baghdad fell? Reports the we're arming a bunch of domestic "militia" groups (INC, etc.) aren't encouraging, for one.

I respect the way that you actually hope Iraq "cracks up" so the Dems can win in 2004. By "crack" you imply more American deaths as that's essentially the only way it can go badly. I'm so happy that a Dem in the office is that important to you.

I don't care what side you're on but hoping for the economy to take a down turn now that it's improving or hoping Iraq "cracks up" and more Americans die is sick.

[Bob Violence]

I don't care what side you're on but hoping for the economy to take a down turn now that it's improving or hoping Iraq "cracks up" and more Americans die is sick.

You're dumb.

[Bob Cherub]

You're dumb.

Wow, did it take a couple minutes to think up that one?

[Bob Violence]

Not really.

You're still dumb, though.

[Dirt]

Nearly 3000 lives lost on 9/11 still cry out for justice. Justice Bush promised.

Yea, I think you're right. Bush gave up on trying to find Osama a long time ago. Bush is heartless to the victims of 9/11 and figures Osama just got away.

Sarcasm mode off. Dirt, you are a clueless fuck.

When did we have sex?

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

... Still, giving Saddam some money in 1981, as morally questionable as it now seems (and was), isn't exactly as morally questionable in my mind with Germany handing over equipment to directly manufacture chemical munitions well within the UN sanction timetable.


May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

Yes, I know that wasn't within the sanctions timeline. However, exporting biological weapons to a country at war is still pretty bad; we're not just talking funding here.

[Anders Hallin]

I've only listened to the beginning of the press conference, since I was just on my way out, but it was rather disturbing. Who the hell were at that press conference? 25 seconds (or something) of cheering after being given a catchy headline. I mean, it's good news and all, but do they have to sound like complete cheerleaders for something that in light of the current situation might be a lot more a feather in the cap for the US government than significant for the Iraqi occupation.
This is supposed to be the real world, not some movie where the uber-evil bad guy is defeated, everyone throws confetti and all is right in the world. Some perspective, please.

[Kyle Wilson]

Who the hell were at that press conference? 25 seconds (or something) of cheering after being given a catchy headline.

Um, that was the Iraqi press. You know, the people who lived under Saddam Hussein their entire lives?

I found their yelling a little unsettling, since even we Americans don't usually go in for such public displays of strong emotion, but not having lived under Saddam's reign, I'm not in a position to judge.

[Anders Hallin]

Um, that was the Iraqi press. You know, the people who lived under Saddam Hussein their entire lives?
Okay, that explains it then.
Still a silly sentence to begin a press conference with, though.

[Bub, Andrew]

The were cheering because they were looking at the video of Saddam being examined. Seeing him humiliated. Remember, there was 30 years of this man presenting himself as a God or a hero. Very few families in Iraq don't know someone killed by his regime. This is someone most people really believed was "larger than life". They were cheering, making obscene gestures, and yelling what ABC translated as "Death to Saddam". If you listen, they're sobbing too.

A very profound display, if you ask me.

Here's an interesting Salon peice
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/12/14/iraqis_surpised/index.html

[Jason McCullough]

UPDATE: I almost forgot to include the obligatory "See? I'm Not A Fascist Sympathizer After All!" Public Demonstration of Support for Good Things, so here it is: I am very pleased that we caught Saddam, because he's a terrible person, now with an appropriately terrible beard. I should also add the equally obligatory "See! I'm Not A Mindless Slave of Right-Wing Spin!" Public Demonstration of Considered Skepticism by saying that I doubt this will have much impact on the situation in Iraq, because the fool was living in a fucking hole in the ground, and couldn't even coordinate himself up a disposable razor, let alone a country-wide insurgency. I'd also like to emphasize point #1 by noting that I'd love to be proved wrong on #2.

http://www.thepoorman.net/

Btw. Cherub: fuck you.

[Brian Koontz]

Um, that was the Iraqi press. You know, the people who lived under Saddam Hussein their entire lives?

I found their yelling a little unsettling, since even we Americans don't usually go in for such public displays of strong emotion, but not having lived under Saddam's reign, I'm not in a position to judge.

Its difficult for me to respect a people that can't kill a single man and then cheer when an outside force comes in and apprehends him. It took a single man to humiliate a nation. It took a substantial portion of the world's most powerful military to apprehend a man.

Lets say Bush and handlers get extreme, tyrannizing the United States, noone takes care of the problem until a mass UN force comes in and handles it. I'd rather the American people berate themselves for cowardice rather than CHEER the incoming force.

[Mark Asher]

And our 2004 president is...........

It's more about the economy than anything. If it continues to improve, Bush will probably win. If it doesn't get better, Bush will have a fight on his hands. Iraq's still a valid campaign issue, too.

I agree completely. If Saddam and Osama were never caught, but the economy continued its upswing I think it wouldn't have mattered what monkey in a suit the Dems. put up there. I, in fact, said as much in the Dean/Gore thread. Damn, Mark! I thought you read and committed to memory every person's posts on this board, especially mine as they pearls, each and every one.


.......the Democrats could make the prospects of ousting Bush a lot better if they could just stop all the childish infighting and offer up a halfway decent candidate. But that won't happen.....


That's why I have given up on the party in a nutshell. There is a lot of whining and mewling, but no strong candidates putting forth platforms that say much other than, "I will not do it like Bush has done it because he sucks."

Every party behaves like this when they don't have a sitting president and the party nomination is up for grabs. Don't you remember Bush Sr. calling Reagan's economic policy "voodoo economics" or the fighting between Dubya and McCain for the nomination this past election.

[Daniel Morris]

thepoorman.net
...I doubt this will have much impact on the situation in Iraq, because the fool was living in a fucking hole in the ground, and couldn't even coordinate himself up a disposable razor, let alone a country-wide insurgency.

Time.com
Along with the $750,000 in cash, two AK 47 machine guns and pistol found with Saddam, the U.S. intelligence official confirmed that operatives found a briefcase with Saddam that contained a letter from a Baghdad resistance leader. Contained in the message, the official said, were the minutes from a meeting of a number of resistance leaders who came together in the capital. The official said the names found on this piece of paper will be valuable and could lead to the capture of insurgency leaders around the Sunni Triangle.

-----

Shut down Osama and we'll talk.

Somehow I doubt that "we'll talk." I predict you will greet the news of Bin Laden's death with an angst-ridden essay about how his martyrdom will now spawn 100/1,000/10,000 "new Bin Ladens," using all the same arguments that anti-interventionists used to warn against action in Iraq. The punchline being, of course, that one need only glance at today's coverage at al-Jazeera to see how the liberation of Iraq has finally been accepted for what it is:

Aljazeera.Net
Bremer began the press conference with the dramatic announcement, "Ladies and gentlemen, we got him." His statement was greeted by jubilant applause and cries from some Arab journalists in the audience.

In the Iraqi capital, celebratory gunfire rang out, radios played festive music, drivers honked their horns and passengers on buses and trucks chanted "They got Saddam, they got Saddam!"


I have refrained from using the phrase until now, but given the scenes from Iraq today, and the fact that even al-Jazeera's jackals have fallen silent, I feel it can now be said --- if you opposed our intervention in Iraq, you were on the wrong side of history.

[Dirt]

I have refrained from using the phrase until now, but given the scenes from Iraq today, and the fact that even al-Jazeera's jackals have fallen silent, I feel it can now be said --- if you opposed our intervention in Iraq, you were on the wrong side of history.

History is not just a moment in time. The last pages of this saga won't be written until most of us have gone to our graves.

[Bob Cherub]

Btw. Cherub: fuck you.

Sheesh, aren't liberals supposed to be wildly articulate and intellectual giants, yet all I've managed to score from Bob Violence and Jason McCommie is "You're dumb" and "fuck you". Color me surprised.

Really, though, I've seen dozens of your posts "hoping" that the Iraq situation goes badly or that the economy stops improving just so you can get a guy you support in the White House. Doesn't that seem a little wrong to you at all?

I'm an anti-liberal libertarian but when I was making thousands during the peak of Clinton's reign (and many others were as well), I wasn't hoping for it all to end just cause I couldn't stand the man.

[Dirt]

Btw. Cherub: fuck you.

Sheesh, aren't liberals supposed to be wildly articulate and intellectual giants, yet all I've managed to score from Bob Violence and Jason McCommie is "You're dumb" and "fuck you". Color me surprised.


Your "Dirt, you're a clueless fuck" isn't gonna win you a Pulitzer either. Monkey see, monkey do.

[Bob Cherub]

I don't know Bob, your "Dirt, you're a clueless fuck" isn't gonna win you a Pulitzer either.

Hehe. Well I did have the sarcasm bit beforehand, that, as minor as it was, was more than the two intellectual giants could come up with.

I will bet with you now that Jason McCommie will not address my valid point.

[Prodigy]

I feel it can now be said --- if you opposed our intervention in Iraq, you were on the wrong side of history.

Why ? Because Saddam was caught ? Now everything's going to be good and sweet in the world ?

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

I have refrained from using the phrase until now, but given the scenes from Iraq today, and the fact that even al-Jazeera's jackals have fallen silent, I feel it can now be said --- if you opposed our intervention in Iraq, you were on the wrong side of history.

Excellent... I noticed it was "Operation Red Dawn" that caught him, by the way. I can just see Bush's next Presidential Address (or whatever they're called): "Terrorists of the world: Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you. "

Det er ALARM! på vegne av VANVITTIG mange.

[Anders Hallin]

What I'm really afraid of that the US public will see the the Iraqi situation as "finished" in some way and pull their attention away from it, giving the government room to leave it much like Afghanistan.

[Prodigy]

What I'm really afraid of that the US public will see the the Iraqi situation as "finished" in some way and pull their attention away from it, giving the government room to leave it much like Afghanistan.

I don't think it's fair to say the US has left Afghanistan, I think they recently made a huge operation in the "tribal zones" between Afghanistan and Pakistan. But unfortunately Hussein's capture must be music to Bin Laden's ears, since the two hated each other.

[Anders Hallin]

I don't think it's fair to say the US has left Afghanistan, I think they recently made a huge operation in the "tribal zones" between Afghanistan and Pakistan. But unfortunately Hussein's capture must be music to Bin Laden's ears, since the two hated each other.
I'm well aware of the relatively large operation still going on in Afghanistan, but the focus hasn't been on ensuring democratic development in Afghanistan for quite some time.

[Prodigy]

I'm well aware of the relatively large operation still going on in Afghanistan, but the focus hasn't been on ensuring democratic development in Afghanistan for quite some time.

I think that's been more or less settled with the constitution of the Karzaï government, and the financial aid that's been promised, hasn't it ?

[steve]

I have refrained from using the phrase until now, but given the scenes from Iraq today, and the fact that even al-Jazeera's jackals have fallen silent, I feel it can now be said --- if you opposed our intervention in Iraq, you were on the wrong side of history.
While this may prove true, any collegiate-level history or political science student would understand that you can't place an event like this in any sort of historical context while it's still taking place.

[Squirrel Killer]

Excellent... I noticed it was "Operation Red Dawn" that caught him, by the way.

I just want to be on record saying that I can't wait for Operation Dirty Dancing.

[Bub, Andrew]

Dude, Operation Roadhouse is going to kick so much ass!

[Prodigy]

I think Operation Point Break & Operation Black Dog have already been done, haven't they ?

[Squirrel Killer]

Foul: Using IMDB. 5 post penalty.

[Daniel Morris]

No one is saying the job is done in Iraq -- quite the contrary, every White House official is going well out of their way to counsel the opposite.

However, it's safely time to begin placing this intervention into its historical context.

After all, some surprising voices from the Muslim world have already begun doing so:

Jordanian Government

The Jordanian Government hopes that a page has been turned and that the Iraqi people will be able to assume their responsibilities as soon as possible and build their future according to their will.

Let's pause a moment to consider the above: the government of Jordan, an Arab monarchy, has just offered its hope that the people of Iraq will "build their future according to their will." Granted, the "D" word was not used. So let's also hear from...

Indonesian foreign ministry spokesman Marty Natalegawa

The capture of Saddam Hussein is long overdue. It is our hope that his capture will help speed up the process of reconciliation and the transition toward a democratic government of Iraq, where sovereignty is restored in the hands of the Iraqi people.

Okay, so there's the "D" word. What's Indonesia's significance again? Oh, that's right, it's the world's most populous Muslim country.

Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokesman Masood Khan

Iraqi people have to decide how to move on and what to do after the arrest of the former Iraqi strongman.

Did that statement just come from the government of a Muslim military dictatorship? (Though he skipped the "D" word too. Is there an elephant in the room?)

Tired of Muslim historical contextualizing? Why don't we turn instead to communist China for the next bit of historical contextualizing:

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao

We hope that the latest development of the situation in Iraq is conducive to the Iraqi people taking their destiny into their own hands...

The writing is on the wall, and all the world can see it via satellite: This is a dismal week to be the ruling elite of a totalitarian society. Something profound has been demonstrated in Iraq, and one would be quite right to suggest that we will not appreciate its full impact for decades yet.

[Dirt]

To Daniel Morris:

Yeah, and after 9/11 the whole world was saying how much they were behind us for the war on terror.

Make no mistake Dan, this is the world's way of telling the US to get the hell out of Iraq.

China is a totalitarian society. Also, it's China's way of saying to the US: Taiwan is ours, we'll do what we need to do to make sure it stays that way.

Edited many times with apologies to everyone.

[XPav]

The writing is on the wall, and all the world can see it via satellite: This is a dismal week to be the ruling elite of a totalitarian society.

No kidding. Some of them get dug out of holes and arrested, others narrowly escape assasination. Not a good week to be a unelected leader of a country, no matter which side you've managed to get yourself on.

[balut]

Excellent... I noticed it was "Operation Red Dawn" that caught him, by the way.

Too bad there's no footage of troops yelling "WOLVERINES!!!" after they caught him.

[Squirrel Killer]

[snip his entire post]

[snip blah blah blah]

Did you really need to quote Dan in his entirety? I mean, it's not like his post wasn't directly above yours or anything. I realize that not all of us read anything he posts, but maybe we could make an exception in order to place your insights into their proper context. :wink:

[noun]

The writing is on the wall, and all the world can see it via satellite: This is a dismal week to be the ruling elite of a totalitarian society. Something profound has been demonstrated in Iraq, and one would be quite right to suggest that we will not appreciate its full impact for decades yet.

Yep - totalitarian societies are screwed. Unless they have nuclear weapons, then we'll leave them alone. Oh, and if they lack any usable resources, we'll probably take a pass as well.

Look, I'm glad Saddam is gone and our troops did a hell of a job and all that, but if we really did it to save the Iraqi people then we're long overdue to invade most of South America and Africa...

Here's to hoping we'll see a similar news story about Osama one day.

Edited because my poor choice of initial words totally ruined the first paragraph, damn it.

[Kyle Wilson]

Too bad there's no footage of troops yelling "WOLVERINES!!!" after they caught him.

From http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=19&u=/ap/20031215/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_s_capture:

The operation to grab Saddam — code-named Red Dawn — was aimed at two farmhouses dubbed Wolverine 1 and Wolverine 2. The fugitive dictator was caught at a third farmstead nearby.

[Jason McCullough]

What I'm really afraid of that the US public will see the the Iraqi situation as "finished" in some way and pull their attention away from it, giving the government room to leave it much like Afghanistan.

I don't think it's fair to say the US has left Afghanistan, I think they recently made a huge operation in the "tribal zones" between Afghanistan and Pakistan. But unfortunately Hussein's capture must be music to Bin Laden's ears, since the two hated each other.

True, we haven't left. We've just let the country go to hell; it's apparently sheer anarchy outside the borders of the capital, and not much better in the capital at night.

[Midnight Son]

Too much freedom is anarchy, grasshoppers. There must be balance between ying and yang, good and evil, NFC and AFC.....

[XPav]

Too bad there's no footage of troops yelling "WOLVERINES!!!" after they caught him.

From http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=19&u=/ap/20031215/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_s_capture:

The operation to grab Saddam — code-named Red Dawn — was aimed at two farmhouses dubbed Wolverine 1 and Wolverine 2. The fugitive dictator was caught at a third farmstead nearby.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2092608/

It points that naming the operation Red Dawn is just wrong, because in the movies, the Wolverines were the good-guy guerillas, and in reality, we're the good-guy occupying power. So see, it was a bad name.

[Doug Erickson]

Were the local neocons so joyful when Clinton shut down Milosevic, or do my eyes deceive me?

As for the Dems, the current in-fighting is just disgusting. The whining Kerry and Lieberman are currently emitting probably does more to damage the Dems overall chances than the capture of Hussein.

[Bob Cherub]

I thought Dean's horrid Al Gore-written speech today did plenty of damage.

[Johan O]

The writing is on the wall, and all the world can see it via satellite: This is a dismal week to be the ruling elite of a totalitarian society. Something profound has been demonstrated in Iraq, and one would be quite right to suggest that we will not appreciate its full impact for decades yet.
Saddam is not the first dictator to fall, neither is he the first leader of a sovereign country to be toppled by US help. I fail to see why Saddams capture is so different. What is so profound about the US ability to remove third world dictators? If anything the last decades of Iraqi history demonstrates the ineffectuality of popular uprisings and the lesson that as long as you do not anger the powers that be you can, if you are ruthless and skillful enough, hold unto power for near indefinate time. I see no lesson here for dictators to fear, it looks like business as usual to me. I especially doubt that the top crust of the communist part in Beijing is losing any sleep over the fall and capture of Saddam.

The sizeable Kurdish population here in Malmoe went wild Sunday, and I am happy for them, I just do not see this event as that significant in a historic perspective.

[Anders Hallin]

Daniel, after reading some quotes from Iraqis in the newspaper today, I think it's clear to me that the US' job is finished, and they should leave right away...

No, of course I don't think that, do you think I'm stupid? My point is, the effect something has on one population needn't be true for the other. So while I think there's a good possibility of Iraq finally working out as a better place than under Hussein (though there is of course a considerable chance of that not happening), I think the global effects of the war will be negative, as I have since the get-go.

Also, Saddam was hardly part of the ruling elite anymore. He was a leader already deposed in a war. Not the first ruler deposed by the US, but certainly in the most ham-fisted manner.

No one is saying the job is done in Iraq -- quite the contrary, every White House official is going well out of their way to counsel the opposite.
Of course, but with today's cult of individualism, Saddam was the representative of the Enemy in Iraq, I wonder if people will be able to look past that.

[Dirt]

The only lesson to be learned here by dictators is: even if you don't have nukes, say that you do.

[Daniel Morris]

The only lesson to be learned here by dictators is: even if you don't have nukes, say that you do.

Amusing analysis.

Let's examine each of the benefits reaped by North Korea since admitting its nuclear weapons program:

1. Global condemnation, U.N. censure, and total diplomatic isolation.

2. Immediate end to all (badly-needed) economic aid.

3. Unification of all neighboring states (Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan) into a diplomatic condominium against it.

4. End to vital oil/heating fuel imports from China.

5. End to vital food shipments by the U.N. World Food Programme.


Since the admission of the nuke program, the lights are largely off in Pyongyang, which would be bad enough, except the heat is also off thanks to the punitive oil-import freeze by China. The winter temperature these days is often -10 C, and there is no heat. There is no food.

This is the example set by NK's embarkation on a nuclear weapons program.

Would you say that there are a lot of Third World autocracies eager to sign up for this model? How about in Iran, where there is already a large and restless youth movement agitating for liberalization? There, the Supreme Council is hanging onto an increasingly shaky limb -- just how long do you think the ayatollahs would remain in power once they'd incurred measures like those above?

[XPav]

Let's examine each of the benefits reaped by North Korea since admitting its nuclear weapons program:

For extra credit, compare North Korea to Pakistan, a third world country headed by an unelected leader that came to power in a military coup. It actually has nuclear weapons.

The US needed/needs Pakistan to aid in the fight against Islamic terrorism, and so its held to a different standard. Sure, we're still not letting them have the F-16s they ordered a billion years ago, and we're not liking the fact that they have nuclear weapons, but we're willing to cut them a lot of slack because we need them.

He's not alone in this also -- the Central Asian Republics are also run by a variety of strongmen and dictators, but are on our side. Seems to me that you can get away with quite a bit as long as you promise to help the US in the "War On Terror". It might be the prudent realpolitik thing to do -- but it ain't moral clarity by any definition of the term.

[Dirt]

Would you say that there are a lot of Third World autocracies eager to sign up for this model? How about in Iran, where there is already a large and restless youth movement agitating for liberalization? There, the Supreme Council is hanging onto an increasingly shaky limb -- just how long do you think the ayatollahs would remain in power once they'd incurred measures like those above?

Did Saddam care if there was light and heat in Baghdad so long as he had them in his castle?

[XPav]

Philosoraptor covers how I feel...

http://philosoraptor.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_philosoraptor_archive.html#107155242136 449332


....
So no, I’m actually not in ecstasy about Saddam’s capture. It’s not that I don’t despise the guy, and it’s not that I don’t recognize how wonderful it is that he's history. It’s just that America lost so much in getting here that it’s hard to take excessive joy in it. And one real tragedy here is that we didn’t even give up a lot to get Saddam—we simply lost things, apparently without any real consciousness that we were losing them. We didn’t nobly decide to make sacrifices in order to do what is right and bring down the tyrant. Rather, we were tricked into doing it for craven reasons. Because we were stupid and uninformed, and because we were easily frightened and overly deferential to authority, we allowed ourselves to be talked into going to war. What we did will probably, on balance, have morally good consequences (unless the administration cuts and runs before the next election, that is). But we don’t get credit for those consequences since we didn’t go to war in order to achieve them. If I’m a tad dim and easily frightened and, as a result, I shoot someone who in fact posed no threat to me, then I don’t get any moral credit for shooting him, even if I saved someone else by doing so. If my reasons for shooting were stupid and cowardly, then I’m a stupid coward--no matter what good is accomplished by my bullet. Actions are morally good or bad on the basis of intentions--on the basis of the goals for which they are undertaken--and we undertook this war not in order to bring justice to Iraq, but in order to eliminate a threat our leaders invented almost out of whole cloth. We had a morally good goal and a goal that motivated us, but sadly these were two different goals. The not-especially-noble goal of self-defense actually moved us to act, something that the morally laudable goal of deposing the tyrant never would have done by itself. The morally laudable goal was invoked only after the fact, after it became painfully obvious that our action taken in self-defense was based on irresponsibly shoddy evaluation of the evidence. Shamed, and left without a plausible reason for doing what we had done, we were all too willing to be manipulated again, especially when this time we were being manipulated into accepting an account of things that made us, not pusillanimous lackwits sheepishly obeying orders to fire indiscriminately, but brave and noble defenders of the downtrodden.

[noun]

Great site, but I actually like this quote from one of the preceding paragraphs better:

So years pass and then along comes 9/11 and then the second Bush administration makes asses of us by beguiling us into a war. They can do this because the Republicans have gone insane, the Democrats have become invertebrates, half of the media are in the pocket of the radical right, the other half are asleep on watch, and most Americans are so lazy and uninformed that they'll do whatever they're told so long as they don't have to turn off their teevees or pay more for gasoline for their es-you-vees.

[Ben]

That paragraph assumes that we had only one reason for going to war. In short, that guy is a moron. Because we had other reasons, we get no credit for the good we do. My God, is that really what passes for thought left of center these days?

[XPav]

That paragraph assumes that we had only one reason for going to war. In short, that guy is a moron. Because we had other reasons, we get no credit for the good we do. My God, is that really what passes for thought left of center these days?
If you listened to Bush the reason we attacked Iraq was because he had WMD and terrorist ties that he was going to use to attack the United States directly or indirectly at some point in the future. Let me repeat again: All those reasons based on self defense turned out to be shit. He didn't have WMD. He didn't have terrorist ties.

What other reasons did Bush give for the invading Iraq? He and his administration never directly talked about all the "other" proposed reasons for going to war (scaring the Arabs, making a model of democracy in the Middle East, etc etc). The "its humanitarian" reasons were added on as a after thought. As philosoraptor says, if I shoot a bad man because I thought he was going to hurt me, and it turns out he wasn't, turning around and saying "well, he was a bad man and deserved to die anyway" doesn't make one a crusader for justice.

[Rywill]

What other reasons did Bush give for the invading Iraq? He and his administration never directly talked about all the "other" proposed reasons for going to war
I hate Bush, but that's a lie and you know it. He talked about what a brutal dictator Saddam was, and about how a democracy in Iraq would be a beacon and haven to others in the region, fairly extensively.

[Dirt]

So now, the Pentagon is defending making Saddam look bad during his check-up which I think is something you have to do in order to drain your enemy's will to fight.

However, the Pentagon refuses to classify Saddam as a POW, which I also think is wrong since he was a head of state and therefore his army.

[Qenan]

The only lesson to be learned here by dictators is: even if you don't have nukes, say that you do.

Amusing analysis.


Amusing and correct. The upsides of having nukes are much bigger than the downsides.

[XPav]

What other reasons did Bush give for the invading Iraq? He and his administration never directly talked about all the "other" proposed reasons for going to war
I hate Bush, but that's a lie and you know it. He talked about what a brutal dictator Saddam was, and about how a democracy in Iraq would be a beacon and haven to others in the region, fairly extensively.
Alright, "never" was too far. You are correct, I am wrong.

However, the complete lack of planning for post-war Iraq shows that it was never an actual priority for the Bush administration. Calling for an invasion of Iraq on humanitarian grounds alone wouldn't have convinced the American public, and they knew it. Bush and the administration convinced a majority (small majority) of the people in the US that invasion of Iraq was needed because Saddam was a threat to us here in the US.

He wasn't. He never was. Bush and his administration lied. They took scant evidence and spun it to scare people, and people bought into the lie, looking for something concrete to "hit back at" after 9/11.

Oh, and as an aside, lets see what the capture of Saddam did to Bush's approval ratings.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data121503.html

This is with 95% of the people saying they'd heard about Saddam being captured.

---------Approve--------- --------Disapprove------- No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Strongly Somewhat opin.
12/14/03 57 37 20 39 29 10 5
12/7/03 53 32 21 40 27 13 7


Campaign 2004 isn't over by a long shot. Keep in mind also that after the initial campaign was over and Saddam wasn't captured, we were told how he wasn't really important anyway.

[Uncle Larry]

The WMD situation is still a pretty big issue, IMO. If there really weren't any in his arsenal, or worse - that they've found their way into the hands of some other rogue nation or group- then we have some serious trouble. Not that I think it will undo the other successes in Iraq, but neither is it going to suddenly "not matter". It's easy to forget that, at one point, Saddam ammased enough sarin and VX gas to KILL THE WORLD'S POPULATION...THREE TIMES OVER. It's possible UNSCOM missed some, y'know?

There's no solid evidence that Saddam was cooperating with bin Laden, I won't split hairs here. That said, is paying up to $25k to the families of suicide bombers suddenly not considered ties to terrorism? Or is terrorism against Isreal really considered freedom-fighting? It's ok for you to hate Bush, but it's not ok to sugar-coat Saddam's misdeeds. Choose another path, warrior!

[XPav]

There's no solid evidence that Saddam was cooperating with bin Laden, I won't split hairs here. That said, is paying up to $25k to the families of suicide bombers suddenly not considered ties to terrorism? Or is terrorism against Isreal really considered freedom-fighting? It's ok for you to hate Bush, but it's not ok to sugar-coat Saddam's misdeeds. Choose another path, warrior!
Never did. Saddam's a monster, I'm glad he's being brought to justice.

But: Every Arab country in the Middle East uses Israel as a scapegoat for all the world's problems, and many of them send money in various ways to the Palestinians. Even our allies in Saudi Arabia do this (www.jcpa.org/jl/vp504.htm).

Spreadsheets from the Saudi Committee for Aid to the al-Quds Intifada were found that detailed the movement of moneys to the families of suicide bombers. Saudi spokesmen tried to distance themselves from this activity by arguing that they helped these families through "international aid organizations." Yet it became clear from the spreadsheets that these contributions were given through a specifically Saudi organization, headed by the Saudi Minister of the Interior, Prince Naif. Indeed, at the top right-hand corner of the spreadsheets found in the West Bank, the name "Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" stands out. In the words of Secretary of State Colin Powell, this kind of support "incentivized" the suicide terrorist attacks.
...
The Israeli national assessment is that Saudi Arabia today funds more than 50 percent of the needs of Hamas, and the Saudi percentage in the total foreign aid to Hamas is actually growing. U.S. law enforcement officials agree.22 Some Israeli estimates of the Saudi portion of the Hamas budget have been put at 60-70 percent.


Iraq isn't alone, and if you say that Iraq had ties to terrorism, well, alright, but you've raised the bar to the point where basically all Arab countries have ties to terrorism. Its so bad, some rather crazy people pointed out that if we wanted to stop terrorism, we really should have invaded Saudi Arabia.

[Ben Sones]

However, the complete lack of planning for post-war Iraq shows that it was never an actual priority for the Bush administration.

Yeah, this is what bugs me the most. I, too, was in favor of removing Saddam, but I think even the hawks can all agree that Bush has fucked up the Iraq situation in a mighty way. I'm glad they finally caught Saddam, but that's just one of many, many things we need to accomplish over there, and I have serious doubts whether the current administration has either the desire or the ability to see this matter through to the extent that the Iraqi people deserve.

[Uncle Larry]

I hardly consider the Saudis our allies. They take my gas money and turn it into JIHAD!!! I also have 15 other good reasons not to trust those fucks, and they all slammed into various buildings a while back. I say bring on our hydrogen-powered hovercars and I'll respond by saying "fuck Saudi Arabia" and celebrate our newfound Arab-oil-independence by slamming my 2010 model Chevy Skyvette into the French embassy in Riyadh while screaming "DISCO SUCKS!"

And another thing: Admit it, people of the world. Saddam=bad, capture=good. No one in the Bush administration is gloating just yet, so stuff like this:http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-saddam-mcdermott,0,2235697,print.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines is just retarded.

Oh, and supposedly Osama will magically appear in custody at some point before the election, at which point it will become a bad thing.

[bago]

Yep, no link to terrorism whatsoever.

Except the 25k payments for every suicide bomber.

And allegedly training Mohammed Atta.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html

[XPav]

Hey, I'm all for a policy of moving away from dependence on middle eastern oil. Hydrogen cars, whatever. Bring that on.

And Larry, I'm hard pressed to find anyone that says that the capture of Saddam isn't a good thing. What I think a lot of people are asking is... "ok, what does this change?" -- and the answer apparently is "maybe it will make the attacks on US forces cease", which would be good. Of course, it could be the other way around -- Saddam has been captured and attacks will cease because of better US intelligence and tactics.

Bush and Rumsfeld said Saddam was irrelevant months ago, after all.

[XPav]

Yep, no link to terrorism whatsoever.

Except the 25k payments for every suicide bomber.

And allegedly training Mohammed Atta.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11313

While it is almost impossible to ascertain whether or not the document is legitimate or a clever fake, Iraqi officials working for the interim government are convinced of its authenticity, even though they decline to reveal where and how they obtained it. "It is not important how we found it," said a senior Iraqi security official. "The important thing is that we did find it and the information it contains."

Call me a little skeptical here. As for the $25,000, as I said earlier, many Arab states support Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations. Iraq isn't alone.

[Bull]

Yep, no link to terrorism whatsoever.

Except the 25k payments for every suicide bomber.

And allegedly training Mohammed Atta.

And all the alleged stores of WMD they were allegedly selling to terrorists.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh please, Dan, the lights were off to start with, and they were starving anyway. You know what hasn't happened, though, and is considered an armaggedon-level scenario? A US invasion.

It's easy to forget that, at one point, Saddam ammased enough sarin and VX gas to KILL THE WORLD'S POPULATION...THREE TIMES OVER.

What the fuck are you talking about? This screams bullshit. Maybe if everyone stood still while Saddam sprinkled the exact dose directly into their open mouth.....

That said, is paying up to $25k to the families of suicide bombers suddenly not considered ties to terrorism?

So the official US policy is to oppose all forms of "terrorism" - whatever the hell that means anymore - against any target, at any time, for the foreseeable future? Like hell it is.

[Bob Cherub]

So the official US policy is to oppose all forms of "terrorism" - whatever the hell that means anymore - against any target, at any time, for the foreseeable future? Like hell it is.

Jason is so right here...cause we all know, there are "good" forms of terrorism.

ROFL.

[Jason McCullough]

Like those afghan insurgents the US supported back in the 1980s? Can't say they played by marquis of queensbury rules, or refrained from attackikng civilians.

[Bob Cherub]

It's almost 2004. The world changes, bro.

[asspennies]

So the official US policy is to oppose all forms of "terrorism" - whatever the hell that means anymore - against any target, at any time, for the foreseeable future? Like hell it is. [Emphasis added]

How quaint.

How about this for a definition: Intentionally targetting civilian populations to attain maximum death and injury.

I suppose you can blow up in a crowded restaurant and be considered a "freedom fighter" in your neck of the woods, but not mine.

against any target, at any time, for the foreseeable future? Like hell it is.
Well if it isn't, it sure as hell should be.

[Linoleum]

Like those afghan insurgents the US supported back in the 1980s? Can't say they played by marquis of queensbury rules, or refrained from attackikng civilians.

I see it isn't just middle eastern cultures that have difficulty processing past tense.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, because we'd never support a rebel insurgency that kills civilians we like again. I'm *sure* of that.

I'm sure we'll support some barbaric group in the next 20 years.

And "intentionally targeting civilians" tends to rope in an awful lot of governments.

[Anders Hallin]

There's no solid evidence that Saddam was cooperating with bin Laden, I won't split hairs here. That said, is paying up to $25k to the families of suicide bombers suddenly not considered ties to terrorism? Or is terrorism against Isreal really considered freedom-fighting? It's ok for you to hate Bush, but it's not ok to sugar-coat Saddam's misdeeds. Choose another path, warrior!
I heard it was to "all killed in the Palestinian intifada", does anyone know for sure?

[bago]

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/040402/new_040402032.shtml

The ol "Convince your angsty teenager to kill himself and buy yourself a new car" move.

[Uncle Larry]

It's easy to forget that, at one point, Saddam ammased enough sarin and VX gas to KILL THE WORLD'S POPULATION...THREE TIMES OVER.

What the fuck are you talking about? This screams bullshit. Maybe if everyone stood still while Saddam sprinkled the exact dose directly into their open mouth.....
Source: PBS special featuring Scott Ritter. In those exact words. Of course, now that you mention it this probably was a case of right-wing embeleshment. Feel free to prove me wrong at any time.

That said, is paying up to $25k to the families of suicide bombers suddenly not considered ties to terrorism?

So the official US policy is to oppose all forms of "terrorism" - whatever the hell that means anymore - against any target, at any time, for the foreseeable future? Like hell it is.
Wow, that's not only a terrifying leap in logic on your part in regard to my argument, but it's also very close to what the administration said after 9/11.
My only aim was to show that Saddam did support terrorism, not justify the war vis a vis US security...although, we are in the middle of the war on terror and all. And he did possess an unnecessary ammount of WMD's. Enemy of the U.S.+ cooperative with terrorists+ chemical weapons= THREAT. This is what the intellegence community tells the administration, and that's what the administration sold to the public. If it's ever proven we were lied to, I'll concede the facts that we went to war for the wrong reasons and that military action was illegal(although, technically, that can and did go either way).

None of that was really a hard sell to me, though. I've had a boner for this fucker since Gulf I. He and his government are getting their comeuppin's, and if we deliver on our promise to build a free Iraq then history will be on our side. Unless, of course, we leave before the job is done.

[Rywill]

However, the complete lack of planning for post-war Iraq shows that it was never an actual priority for the Bush administration. Calling for an invasion of Iraq on humanitarian grounds alone wouldn't have convinced the American public, and they knew it. Bush and the administration convinced a majority (small majority) of the people in the US that invasion of Iraq was needed because Saddam was a threat to us here in the US.

He wasn't. He never was. Bush and his administration lied. They took scant evidence and spun it to scare people, and people bought into the lie, looking for something concrete to "hit back at" after 9/11.

Yeah, I agree with all of this, except maybe that post-war Iraq wasn't a priority for Bush. It could be that he just legitimately (but dumbly) underestimated how difficult it would be. Either way, though, he sucks.

[Squirrel Killer]

Yeah, I agree with all of this, except maybe that post-war Iraq wasn't a priority for Bush. It could be that he just legitimately (but dumbly) underestimated how difficult it would be.

I must have missed Bush's speech where he said that we'd have Iraq wrapped up by Memorial Day, or was it a press release, or a talking point memo he passed out? How do you know that the current situation isn't what Bush and his advisors predicted? For all we know, they could have predicted to be much worse than it is, but still felt that the war was worth fighting anyway.

[Bull]

Yeah, I agree with all of this, except maybe that post-war Iraq wasn't a priority for Bush. It could be that he just legitimately (but dumbly) underestimated how difficult it would be.

I must have missed Bush's speech where he said that we'd have Iraq wrapped up by Memorial Day, or was it a press release, or a talking point memo he passed out? How do you know that the current situation isn't what Bush and his advisors predicted? For all we know, they could have predicted to be much worse than it is, but still felt that the war was worth fighting anyway.

Uh, there was much talk prior to the war abotu what a cake walk it was going to be, how the Iraqis were going to greet us with flowers, cheers, and chocolates. I seem to remember Cheney backpeddling furiously a week or so into the war.

[Daniel Morris]

A few of the reasons the war was fought, in no particular order:

1. To establish credible enforcement of international norms on WMD. (Whether Iraq had a drop of WMD in 2003 or not, it failed utterly, by even Hans Blix's estimation, to account for the WMD that the U.N. catalogued in 1999 before UNSCOM was ejected.)

2. To provide a case study for any hostile or potentially hostile regimes that might consider A) Developing WMD, B) Harboring and abetting anti-American terrorist proxies, or, most distressingly, C) Both A and B.

3. To relieve pressure on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, not only by choking off a source of terrorist funding but, more importantly, to negate the threat of westward invasion which has been, since 1967, a key Israeli rationale for holding the West Bank.

4. Oil.

5. To fundamentally shake up the status quo of Middle Eastern anti-politics, by forcibly removing the region's most egregious despot and affording his historically great people a previously unimaginable opportunity for modern politics and self-government.



The root cause of Islamist terror is the lack of real politics in most Muslim societies. If Iraq is able to constitute itself into even a nascent form of self-government, incredible headway will have been built toward a fundamental empowerment of the disenfranchised masses of the entire region. Accordingly, one can and should interpret Gulf War II as a fundamental response to 9/11.

[Squirrel Killer]

Uh, there was much talk prior to the war abotu what a cake walk it was going to be, how the Iraqis were going to greet us with flowers, cheers, and chocolates. I seem to remember Cheney backpeddling furiously a week or so into the war.

Bush said that it was going to be a cake walk, really? Yep, I missed that speech. As for your hyperbole with the chocolates and the naming their kids George, once we toppled the regime, I seem to recall that our troops did seem to be welcomed by a significant proportion of the Iraqi population. (Admittedly, there is a proportion that feel differently.) What you call backpeddling, I'd call setting realistic expectations in the face of the media's expectation inflation. I swear, listening to the commentators, you'd expect Saddam to slit his own throat after the first night of "Shock and Awe" (which of course never materialized due to changing events.)

[Jason McCullough]

"Bush didn't *specifically* say they'd greet us with cheering! Why, sure, all his flunkies did so constantly, but *Bush* didn't say it, and he didn't ever contradict them. So there!"

[bago]

Well, there's always the zogby poll that shows that 75% of the iraqi population supported the invasion...

[Squirrel Killer]

I may honestly be forgetting something, but I really don't recall anyone in any sort of a position of authority saying that the war in Iraq would be easy. Rush Limbaugh, yeah. Idiot commentators on FoxNews, sure. I do remember "anti-war" protesters claiming it would be a bloodbath, but the "pro-war" response wasn't that it would be easy, it was that the "anti-war" predictions were overblown.

[Jason McCullough]

You are honestly forgetting something; I have no idea how you could have missed it. Perle, Wolfowitz, and the conservative media wouldn't shut up about how cheap and easy it'd be.

http://www.shockingelk.com/text/cakewalk/

There's other more egregious examples, but I can't find them at the moment. Remember how Shinseski was told to shut up after he gave an accurate estimate of the war costs in dollars?

Rush and friends tried to pretend they didn't a while back, but it doesn't take too much time with google to falsify it.

And Larry, I can't find that Ritter claim. Got a link?

[bago]

To play devil's advocate, name another war that was either faster or easier?

[Jason McCullough]

Hasn't gone on long enough to make a judgement on faster. Bosnia was a hell of a lot easier, though; not a single combat death, and the country is mostly fixed. I don't think there was any occupation deaths, either.

[Bob Cherub]

Squirrel, fightin' a losing battle buddy. Jason wants the war to be hard and bloody so Dean can get elected Pres and keep us "safe" by letting Saddam go.

[Jason McCullough]

Again, Bob, please go fuck yourself.

[Bob Cherub]

lol.

You never answered my challenge from before. You're good at misquotes and downright fabrications (see other threads) but when you're actually challenged on your ideals, you have no response. Why is that?

[Jason McCullough]

Because you're a troll?

[XPav]

Squirrel, fightin' a losing battle buddy. Jason wants the war to be hard and bloody so Dean can get elected Pres and keep us "safe" by letting Saddam go.

And he said this where? Find a link please. Or are you just trolling?

[Bull]

To play devil's advocate, name another war that was either faster or easier?

Did anyone die when we invaded Grenada?

[XPav]

To play devil's advocate, name another war that was either faster or easier?

Did anyone die when we invaded Grenada?

19.

[Rywill]

To play devil's advocate, name another war that was either faster or easier?
Not relevant. The point is that the Bush administration seemed to believe, and tried to make Americans believe, that once the combat was over, the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq wouldn't be that difficult. You can see that in the way they kept revising upwards how many troops we would need there. If you don't think the strength of the Iraq insurgency caught the Bush administration by surprise, I guess I'll just agree to disagree and move on. It's my firm opinion that they underestimated how much guerrilla (sp?) resistance there would be in Iraq.