| 28th December 2006 11:21 PM |
|
|
| The_Worst |
It's only a matter of time now...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo91NtcvcsI |
| 29th December 2006 10:11 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
This is only going exacerbate an already impossible situation. Anyway...on to demonize the next pasty.....
[Edited by Ten Thousand Motels] |
| 29th December 2006 10:13 AM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
This is only going exacerbate an already impossible situation. Anyway...on to demonize the next pasty.....
[Edited by Ten Thousand Motels]
Cool, pasties! But why demonize them?
[Edited by rasputin56] |
| 29th December 2006 11:24 AM |
|
|
| Scottfree |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
Cool, pasties! But why demonize them?
[Edited by rasputin56]
They should be demonized, I prefer seeing the aerola and nipples.... |
| 29th December 2006 06:09 PM |
|
|
| Osama bin Hiding |
See ya... wouldn't wanna be ya!
Sorry 'bout your luck S-man! Hey -- I'd stay and chat but I've got a leaky cave to fix -- This global warming is killing me. And why did you ever pick such a puny hole in the ground to begin with? When it comes to building rat holes you should have come to Osama, brotha...
Oh well, don't want to keep you hangin' around...
Whaaah..haaaah...hahahahahaha!!! -- I still got it.
So long and thanks for all the camels.
--Osama |
| 29th December 2006 06:13 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
This execution will be followed by alot of violence, death and a sobering realization that all our efforts in Iraq have been the worst use of resources since The Hummer became an urban vehicle. |
| 29th December 2006 06:18 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Pdog, a grip is needed. Here it is, courtesy of Ann Coulter:
Last year, Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, wrote to the head of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, telling him to "be ready starting now" for America to run from Iraq, reminding him how America cut and ran from Vietnam and the "aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam, and how they ran and left their agents."
Alas, Zarqawi never got to implement his Iraq takeover plan because the same troops that are allegedly losing the war right now killed him in June.
But al-Qaida in America isn't ready to quit, yet!
New York Times theater critic Frank Rich made headlines on the Drudge Report last week by announcing: "We have lost in Iraq." Of course, Rich was saying we had lost in Iraq more than six months before we went into Iraq.
In August 2002, he wrote that Bush did not have the support of the American people for war in Iraq and without that he would "mimic another hubristic Texan president who took a backdoor route into pre-emptive warfare."
In April 2003, one month after we invaded, Rich said the looting of Iraqi museums by Iraqis showed "our worst instincts at the very dawn of our grandiose project to bring democratic values to the Middle East."
About six months into the war he wrote a column about Iraq titled: "Why Are We Back in Vietnam?" You can imagine how writing those words must have brought back memories of Frank Rich's own valiant service in Vietnam.
In January 2004, less than a year after the invasion, he wrote: "The greater debate has been over the degree to which the follies of Vietnam are now being re-enacted in Iraq." Historians noted that this is the first time Rich ever panned something containing the word "follies."
A month later, he was again comparing Iraq to Vietnam, saying Bush had forced the comparison "by wearing the fly boy uniform of his own disputed guard duty" when he landed on the aircraft carrier. Did Frank Rich win three purple hearts in combat, or was it four? I always forget.
In May 2004, Rich accused Bush of throwing "underprepared and underprotected" American troops in harm's way in Iraq. OK, I was kidding before. The closest Frank Rich has come to serving in the military was reviewing a revival of "The Caine Mutiny." Though he does know the words to "In the Navy" by heart.
Even after transitioning from musical reviewer to hard-bitten military analyst, Rich couldn't resist tossing in a quick dance review. He gleefully described "pictures of Marines retreating from Fallujah and of that city's citizens dancing in the streets to celebrate their victory over the American liberators."
This too, reminded Rich of Vietnam. Right now I'm trying to think of something that doesn't remind liberals of Vietnam ... hmmm ... drawing a blank.
In September 2005, Rich wrote that the war in Iraq "resembles its Southeast Asian predecessor in its unpopularity, its fictional provocation and its unknown exit strategy" — interestingly, the exact same words he used years ago in his review of "Miss Saigon." He leeringly anticipated "a Tet offensive, Sunni-style" to tilt the election in Kerry's direction.
In October 2004, Rich said Bush had "bungled the war in Iraq and, in doing so, may be losing the war against radical Islamic terrorism as well." He didn't explain how killing tens of thousands of Islamic terrorists constituted "bungling" a war against them. Then again, what do I know about military analysis? I thought "The Goat, or Who Is Sylvia?" was atrocious.
In May of this year, he said that "the public has turned on the war in Iraq" — the very war that he said the public opposed long before we ever went in.
And in June he said the public knows "defeat when they see it, no matter how many new plans for victory are trotted out to obscure that reality" — though I might be confusing this statement with Rich's comments on the Times' plan to charge readers for his column.
Liberals are like people with stale breath talking into your face at a party. You try backing away from them or offering them gum, but then they just start whimpering. They've been using the exact same talking points about how we're losing in Iraq since before we invaded.
It seems they've finally succeeded in exhausting Americans and, thereby, handing a victory to al-Qaida.
The weakest members of the herd are rapidly capitulating, trying to preserve a modicum of honor by prattling about how if their plans had been implemented, Iraq would be in tip-top shape and our troops would be home for Christmas.
Well, if my plans had been implemented, the anti-war crowd would be weeping about Iraqi civilian deaths so much they wouldn't have time to pretend they gave a damn about the loss of American lives.
But the plans that were implemented have deposed a monster, put him on trial — which resulted in his conviction and death sentence — killed rape hobbyists Uday and Qusay, presided over three democratic elections, killed al-Zarqawi and scores of other al-Qaida leaders fighting Americans in Iraq, and kept the U.S. safe from Islamic terrorist attacks for five years now. The least I can do is not capitulate to the left's endless nagging. |
| 29th December 2006 06:32 PM |
|
|
| Some Guy |
What we got here is a good old fustercluck. |
| 29th December 2006 06:42 PM |
|
|
| Taptrick |
I'm not convinced the level of violence will be that substantial. Most of the Baath party high ups are in Yemen/Syria and other areas. I believe most of the violence is being directed by Iran and. The US has detained Iranians in Iraq.
[Edited by Taptrick] |
| 29th December 2006 07:00 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
Let's hope it deflates 'em! |
| 29th December 2006 10:37 PM |
|
|
| pdog |
Blue, I think you missed my dark humor. I was only saying with the execution, nothing will change...
I know, in my heart, that if we wanted a real miltary victory, everything would've needed to be different from the start. Especially the effort made to convince americans that iraq had any connection to the Sept. 11th attacks. There's people still who are convinced Saddam attacked us...
And that sadly was just the beggining of ignarance. The lack off troops to control the country after the govt. collapsed, disbanding all miltart and civil services and being unprpared to deal with the deep sectarian divisions is what has got us to today. and today the mission is victory, which is currently defined as an elected government and self relaint security internall and externally. The only way we will know if we have succeeded would mean mostly all US troops would be gone. The contradictions of this new goal is probably the worst I've heard so far. WMD's, elections, Democracy in the mid-east all now seem way more consumable than this new retarded goal.
We won''t leave til the job is done, yet the job is for them to do it on their own... I'm sorry, but this is fucking retarded!!! And it was false from the start. Comments like Cheney's about mushroom clouds, and Powell at the UN presenting reports of mobile labs, when at the same time there was intel that contradicted these claims. And it was ignored. So we went in ignorant on many levels, from the reason why to what to do after the regime fell. There comes a time when with so much wrong, too many mistakes, the question isn't how do we win. The question is how do we make the fuck up right, and try to admit where you were wrong, and not just say a retarded comment like we stay til we win, and winning is them standing on their own. Fucking retarded and arrogant...
Is Saddam dead yet?
|
| 30th December 2006 01:17 AM |
|
|
| mojoman |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
Cool, pasties! But why demonize them?
[Edited by rasputin56]
saddams daughter? |
| 30th December 2006 06:30 AM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
It is indeed nice to know America's old ally is dead. I hope many people feel good about this. hey, i do. But my country didnt suffer 9/11. And, the fucksticks who did that are safe and well in either a country that is supposed to be liberated/occupied, or a country that is supposed to be America's ally. As far as i know, Saddam didnt contribute one bit to the 9/11 attacks. But, if it makes you guys feel good, fine with me.
It wont make one iota of difference. You guys are throwing lives and money away - all for nought. Well, for oil i guess, but you get my drift. You see, dipsticks like Coulter (who thought Canadians were conscripted to Nam!) dont realise this salient point.
America was involved in Nam for nigh on 13 years. They assasinated the Vietnamese leader in the early 60's, which REALLY helped things along! lol. Shit, you even gave Camobodia a blast, just to say "Hey! watch it!" America put itself in turmoil for another nation for over a decade! I hardly call that "cut and run". And now England has finally paid you back for WW2, what ya gonna do? Ya'll be broke unless you make the 4th "Raiders of the lost Ark".
Here in Oz, its quite likely we'll get the fuck out of Iraq before end of next year for 1 simple reason.
It's election year. Though, i must say, alot of people just dont care, as we've had stuff all casualties, and the most famous one was some idiot clowning around with his pistol. I think if we lost 3,000 people, it might be different.
Yet, people still ask. "Where is Bin Laden and why was Iraq invaded"?
I dont, as i dont care. 1 cunt is dead, and many people are (falsely?) rejoicing. I bet FOX is all over this, with patriotic tears in their eyes. How many more cunts are there though? Another will pop up and will make "America's most wanted" and you guys will go into a frenzy over him. In fact, what about that Chavez guy? hahaha.
But, i would like to know this. If Iraq did nothing to America, and the people WHO DID are walking around praising Allah and humping camels with seeming immunity, then why are so many people NOT affected by Saddams's atrocities celebrating? Like is say, "Yay, a cunt is dead". But, ya know what? More are made every day. Usually, one that gets CIA help. And, Halliburton? (Meow! lol)
I am a bit negative, yes. I guess. Things might settle down. Then again, to quote Admiral Yamamoto "I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant". Or, was it tiger? Or dragon? I can never recall.
So to end on a high, congrats to the Iraqi/American governing system for having the balls to do it. Good on them. At least people know they aint fucking around.
Hope the dog rots in hell with Hitler, Pol Pot, Princess Diana & Liberace.
P.S. I consider this the best the best post ever! |
| 30th December 2006 10:21 AM |
|
|
| Chuck |
Probably not entered into evidence at his trial:
http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html
|
| 30th December 2006 01:05 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
Get the fuck over it!!! Who gives a flying fuck if Saddam was once an ally of the USA?!?!?! So the fuck was Russia! This is just another attempt at smearing the US by some uninformed,and highly unintelligent people,that can not figure out that the world works in very curious ways. The man was hanged because he was a tyrant. The USA had absolutly nothing to do with him becoming the tyrant he became anymore than we steered Stalin into becoming the mass murderer that he became. Put some fucking historical perspective into play here,will ya?! At the time it was completely understandable and proper that the USA side with Saddam!
Let's just slam the USA,and pretend that the rest of the fucking world gave two shits about this animal's atrocities! France,Germany,Russia,and several other countries were "on the take" because of Saddam's bribery,and yet all I see here are people that blindly believe that the USA is the country that has a inordinate amount of blame because of Saddam. We fucking took the bastard down! He's dead because of the USA! Get that fact through your peabrained partisan empty heads! If it were up to France and others Saddam would still be killing people on an industrial scale. For that matter some limpwristed,cockless fucking US liberals would be happy if Saddam were still in power. Fucking stupid tools the lot of them! He's dead! You're welcome!
Riffy |
| 30th December 2006 03:44 PM |
|
|
| Chuck |
What's Good for Saddam May Be Good for Mubarak or the Saudi Royals
Saddam at the End of a Rope
By TARIQ ALI
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GreenLeft_discussion/message/37299
It was symbolic that 2006 ended with a colonial hanging--- most of it (bar the last moments) shown on state television in occupied Iraq. It has been that sort of year in the Arab world. After a trial so blatantly rigged that even Human Rights Watch---the largest single unit of the US Human Rights industry--- had to condemn it as a total travesty. Judges were changed on Washington's orders; defense lawyers were killed and the whole procedure resembled a well-orchestrated lynch mob. Where Nuremberg was a more dignified application of victor's justice, Saddam's trial has, till now, been the crudest and most grotesque. The Great Thinker President's reference to it 'as a milestone on the road to Iraqi democracy' as clear an indication as any that Washington pressed the trigger.
The contemptible leaders of the European Union, supposedly hostile to capital punishment, were silent, as usual. And while some Shia factions celebrated in Baghdad, the figures published by a fairly independent establishment outfit, the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies (its self-description: "which attempts to spread the conscious necessity of realizing basic freedoms, consolidating democratic values and foundations of civil society") reveal that just under 90 per cent of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before it was occupied.
The ICRSC research is based on detailed house-to-house interviewing carried out during the third week of November 2006.
Only five per cent of those questioned said Iraq is better today than in 2003; 89 per cent of the people said the political situation had deteriorated; 79 per cent saw a decline in the economic situation; 12 per cent felt things had improved and 9 per cent said there was no change. Unsurprisingly, 95 per cent felt the security situation was worse than before. Interestingly, about 50 per cent of those questioned identified themselves only as "Muslims"; 34 per cent as Shiites and 14 per cent as Sunnis.
Add to this the figures supplied by the UNHCR: 1.6 million Iraqis (7 per cent of the population) have fled the country since March 2003 and 100,000 Iraqis leave every month, Christians, doctors, engineers, women, etc. There are one million in Syria, 750,000 in Jordan,
150,000 in Cairo. These are refugees that do not excite the sympathy of Western public opinion, since the US (and EU backed) occupation is the cause. These are not compared (as was the case in Kosovo) to the atrocities of the Third Reich. Perhaps it was these statistics (and the estimates of a million Iraqi dead) that necessitated the execution of Saddam Hussein?
That Saddam was a tyrant is beyond dispute, but what is conveniently forgotten is that most of his crimes were committed when he was a staunch ally of those who now occupy the country. It was, as he admitted in one of his trial outbursts, the approval of Washington
(and the poison gas supplied by West Germany) that gave him the confidence to douse Halabja with chemicals in the midst of the Iran-Iraq war. He deserved a proper trial and punishment in an independent Iraq. Not this. The double standards applied by the West never cease to astonish. Indonesia's Suharto who presided over a mountain of corpses (At least a million to accept the lowest figure) was protected by Washington. He never annoyed them as much as Saddam.
And what of those who have created the mess in Iraq today? The torturers of Abu Ghraib; the pitiless butchers of Fallujah; the ethnic cleansers of Baghdad, the Kurdish prison boss who boasts that his model is Guantanamo. Will Bush and Blair ever be tried for war crimes? Doubtful. And Aznar, currently employed as a lecturer at Georgetown University in Washington, DC , where the language of instruction is English of which he doesn't speak a word. His reward is a punishment for the students.
Saddam's hanging might send a shiver through the collective, if artificial, spine of the Arab ruling elites. If Saddam can be hanged, so can Mubarak, or the Hashemite joker in Amman or the Saudi royals, as long as those who topple them are happy to play ball with Washington.
[Edited by Chuck] |
| 30th December 2006 04:59 PM |
|
|
| mojoman |
poor saddam? play misty for me |
| 30th December 2006 05:35 PM |
|
|
| Chuck |
The execution of Saddam Hussein
By the Editorial Board
WSWS
30 December 2006
(clip)
...the execution of Hussein brings the legal proceedings against the former Iraqi leader to an end before any detailed examination of those crimes in which successive US governments played a major role. The case of the execution of 148 Shiite men at Dujail in 1982 was selected to be tried first because the victims were linked to Dawa, the party of Maliki and the preceding US-backed prime minister, Ibrahim Jafari, and because there was no direct US involvement.
This was not the case for most of the other, far bloodier, episodes in the career of Saddam Hussein. The second case, the so-called Anfal campaign of mass killing of Kurds in 1987-88, towards the end of the Iran-Iraq war, was scheduled to resume January 8. Any serious investigation of those atrocities, culminating in the gassing of Kurds at Halabja, would shed light on the role of successive US administrations.
Hussein launched the war on Iran in September 1980 with the tacit backing of the Carter administration, which was then locked in a confrontation with Iran over the student seizure of the US embassy in Tehran and the taking of US officials as hostages. The Reagan administration subsequently provided significant aid to Hussein throughout the eight years of war, supplying tactical military intelligence used to target Iranian forces for chemical weapons attacks, and backing arms sales to Iraq by European allies of the United States such as Britain, France and Germany. On two occasions, in 1983 and 1984, Donald Rumsfeld was sent to Iraq as a special US envoy to reassure Hussein that despite occasional noises about human rights violations, the US would maintain its allegiance to Baghdad in the war.
The other major case against Hussein, over the bloody suppression of revolts by Kurds and Shiites in 1991, threatened to be even more problematic for the Bush administration, since Bush’s own father, the first president Bush, first encouraged the uprisings at the end of the Persian Gulf War, then came to the cold-blooded decision that the continuance of Hussein’s dictatorship was preferable to a collapse of the Iraqi state, which might benefit Iran, the principal concern of US war planners.
Opposition to Saddam Hussein’s show trial and condemnation of his execution in no way imply political support for the former ruler or his policies. Hussein was a typical representative of the national bourgeoisie in a backward and oppressed country—occasionally coming into conflict with imperialism, but implacably committed to the defense of the privileges and property of the Iraqi bourgeoisie against the Iraqi working class.
Hussein’s first major act of mass repression came at the culmination of his rise to power in the late 1970s, when the Baath Party massacred the leadership of the Iraqi Communist Party and suppressed the large and militant working class movement centered in Baghdad and the oil fields.
(snip)
Full: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/dec2006/sh-d30.shtml
|
| 30th December 2006 08:12 PM |
|
|
| Stonesthrow |
A few items need to be iterated in order to understand the larger picture:
1. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was Saddam's fault. It was documented that he possessed and used chemical WMD's on his own Kurdish countrymen in the '90s. One of the U.N. resolutions required him to specify by the end of 2002 what WMD's he had. He refused to do so. If he had no WMD's at that time, all he needed to do was report and verify that to the U.N. Instead, he chose unwisely to continue sabre rattling. Had he complied with the U.N. resolution, there would have been no 2003 invasion. If so, our attention would have stayed more squarely on Al Qaida where it belonged.
2. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The U.S. was rather unhappy with Iran's holding of U.S. hostages in 1979. In a case of situational ethics, we sided with Iraq in its war with Iran starting in 1980. Reagan proved to be correct that Iran would ultimately be the larger danger to this country than Iraq would be.
3. Iraq is a mini-Soviet Union. Without the iron hand of Saddam, Iraq has splintered into tribal warfare between the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, and whey (I couldn't resist). They are the Middle East version of the Hatfields and McCoys. I don't foresee any way that they will overcome their divisive tribal hatreds to unify for the good of all. That is the same thing that happened when the Soviet Union split up around 1980. Then began the tribal warring between all the (fill in the blank)...stans. Putin seems to have figured that out and is trying to become the iron hand that is to rule a union of Russian republics (for better or worse). If the people who settled this country were as stupidly tribalistic as those in the Middle East, the U.S. could never have become as strong and unified as it has.
Even though the root cause of much of the political problems lies with the Middle East "tribes", that does not absolve the current U.S. administration. It appears to have bungled in its original intelligence gathering and it was wholly unprepared for life after the invasion was completed. More importantly, blame must go to every adminstration in this country since 1973. Had the U.S. gone into a war-time effort to develop alternative fuels as I wanted (especially solar), we would not now need any Middle East oil. Had that happened, the price of oil would have collapsed, those countries would have had no money to fund terrorists, we would have had no need for a presence in the Middle East, and those countries could have their petty neighborhood squabbles like they had for thousands of years.
|
| 30th December 2006 08:34 PM |
|
|
| Mel Belli |
quote:
Stonesthrow wrote:
A few items need to be iterated in order to understand the larger picture:
1. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was Saddam's fault. It was documented that he possessed and used chemical WMD's on his own Kurdish countrymen in the '90s. One of the U.N. resolutions required him to specify by the end of 2002 what WMD's he had. He refused to do so. If he had no WMD's at that time, all he needed to do was report and verify that to the U.N. Instead, he chose unwisely to continue sabre rattling. Had he complied with the U.N. resolution, there would have been no 2003 invasion. If so, our attention would have stayed more squarely on Al Qaida where it belonged.
2. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The U.S. was rather unhappy with Iran's holding of U.S. hostages in 1979. In a case of situational ethics, we sided with Iraq in its war with Iran starting in 1980. Reagan proved to be correct that Iran would ultimately be the larger danger to this country than Iraq would be.
3. Iraq is a mini-Soviet Union. Without the iron hand of Saddam, Iraq has splintered into tribal warfare between the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, and whey (I couldn't resist). They are the Middle East version of the Hatfields and McCoys. I don't foresee any way that they will overcome their divisive tribal hatreds to unify for the good of all. That is the same thing that happened when the Soviet Union split up around 1980. Then began the tribal warring between all the (fill in the blank)...stans. Putin seems to have figured that out and is trying to become the iron hand that is to rule a union of Russian republics (for better or worse). If the people who settled this country were as stupidly tribalistic as those in the Middle East, the U.S. could never have become as strong and unified as it has.
Even though the root cause of much of the political problems lies with the Middle East "tribes", that does not absolve the current U.S. administration. It appears to have bungled in its original intelligence gathering and it was wholly unprepared for life after the invasion was completed. More importantly, blame must go to every adminstration in this country since 1973. Had the U.S. gone into a war-time effort to develop alternative fuels as I wanted (especially solar), we would not now need any Middle East oil. Had that happened, the price of oil would have collapsed, those countries would have had no money to fund terrorists, we would have had no need for a presence in the Middle East, and those countries could have their petty neighborhood squabbles like they had for thousands of years.
This is good stuff, Stonesthrow, and I agree with most of it. One small quibble about the Iraq invasion supposedly manifesting the loss of focus on Al Qaeda. I'm borrowing heavily from the author of Fouad Ajami, because, well, he's right: After 9/11, the Bush administration quickly realized that Afghanistan wasn't the problem, that Afghans weren't the problem. The country was being rented, in effect, by the Taliban, which was a mixture of Arabs, Pakistanis, Indonesians and other foreign interlopers.
Then there were the 9/11 hijackers themselves: largely Saudi Arabian, some Egyptians.
So, the question became, How to respond to such a global, multicultural threat that transcended any one nation-state? The U.S. invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban. Okay. Then what? Invade Saudi Arabia or Egypt, each a putative ally of the U.S.? Invade nuclear Pakistan? Not feasible, to say the least.
As everyone knows, Iraq was chosen, officially because of WMB, but, more realistically, in Ajami's words, because Saddam drew the shortest straw. Iraq would be a beachhead for the West to get tough with jihadists on their own turf -- that is to say, in the heart of the Arab world. Saddam was supposed to be an easy target -- which, in a sense, he was, at least in the short-term picture.
But, as you say, the post-invasion phase got bungled. Rumsfeld never truly wanted to occupy the place; his choice would have been to install Chalabi or another exile and leave only a small contingent of U.S. forces behind. Instead we got Bremer, the CPA, the looting, and, well, everyone knows the rest.
It's a sad saga of bad and worse options.
To be quite honest, it makes me nostalgic for the '90s.
Bring on Voodoo Lounge! |
| 30th December 2006 08:48 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Stonesthrow wrote:
A few items need to be iterated in order to understand the larger picture:
1. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was Saddam's fault. It was documented that he possessed and used chemical WMD's on his own Kurdish countrymen in the '90s. One of the U.N. resolutions required him to specify by the end of 2002 what WMD's he had. He refused to do so. If he had no WMD's at that time, all he needed to do was report and verify that to the U.N. Instead, he chose unwisely to continue sabre rattling. Had he complied with the U.N. resolution, there would have been no 2003 invasion. If so, our attention would have stayed more squarely on Al Qaida where it belonged.
2. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The U.S. was rather unhappy with Iran's holding of U.S. hostages in 1979. In a case of situational ethics, we sided with Iraq in its war with Iran starting in 1980. Reagan proved to be correct that Iran would ultimately be the larger danger to this country than Iraq would be.
3. Iraq is a mini-Soviet Union. Without the iron hand of Saddam, Iraq has splintered into tribal warfare between the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, and whey (I couldn't resist). They are the Middle East version of the Hatfields and McCoys. I don't foresee any way that they will overcome their divisive tribal hatreds to unify for the good of all. That is the same thing that happened when the Soviet Union split up around 1980. Then began the tribal warring between all the (fill in the blank)...stans. Putin seems to have figured that out and is trying to become the iron hand that is to rule a union of Russian republics (for better or worse). If the people who settled this country were as stupidly tribalistic as those in the Middle East, the U.S. could never have become as strong and unified as it has.
Even though the root cause of much of the political problems lies with the Middle East "tribes", that does not absolve the current U.S. administration. It appears to have bungled in its original intelligence gathering and it was wholly unprepared for life after the invasion was completed. More importantly, blame must go to every adminstration in this country since 1973. Had the U.S. gone into a war-time effort to develop alternative fuels as I wanted (especially solar), we would not now need any Middle East oil. Had that happened, the price of oil would have collapsed, those countries would have had no money to fund terrorists, we would have had no need for a presence in the Middle East, and those countries could have their petty neighborhood squabbles like they had for thousands of years.
Great post - I agree with most of that. |
| 31st December 2006 07:46 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
Graphic video of the hanging...http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7532034279766935521 |
| 31st December 2006 11:33 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
I dont know if anyone here would be interested, but here at Rocks Off we've just produced some a limited edition Saddam commemorative T-shirt for the occasion.
They're going cheap at $15 each - they're a bit tight around the neck but they hang well.... |
| 31st December 2006 12:12 PM |
|
|
| sweetcharmedlife |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
I dont know if anyone here would be interested, but here at Rocks Off we've just produced some a limited edition Saddam commemorative T-shirt for the occasion.
They're going cheap at $15 each - they're a bit tight around the neck but they hang well....
Hey Gazza,could you model one for us? |
| 31st December 2006 01:07 PM |
|
|
| creepin death |
too bad george bush wasn't the one that was hanged. he's responsible for many american deaths in his bullshit war.
he's worse than saddam ever was. |
| 31st December 2006 01:11 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
creepin death wrote:
too bad george bush wasn't the one that was hanged. he's responsible for many american deaths in his bullshit war.
he's worse than saddam ever was.
You're a fucking tool! Grow up ya stupid fucking punk! What are you like 16?
Riffy |
| 31st December 2006 01:51 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
sweetcharmedlife wrote:
Hey Gazza,could you model one for us?
are you suggesting I should hang myself?  |
| 31st December 2006 02:27 PM |
|
|
| Mel Belli |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
You're a fucking tool! Grow up ya stupid fucking punk! What are you like 16?
Riffy
Riffy, I'm betting he/she is between 18-22: Only someone currently in college could sound so idiotic. |
| 31st December 2006 02:31 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
I heard someone this morning on the CSPAN call-in show express quite similar sentiments. She was vicious yet old. The hatred knows no boundaries. |
| 31st December 2006 02:44 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
Conflicts Shaped Two Presidencies
U.S., Iraq Continue to Experience Aftereffects of Their Confrontations
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 31, 2006; Page A21
The day after he ordered a cease-fire and brought the Persian Gulf War to a close, President George H.W. Bush ruminated about the status quo he had left behind in Iraq. "Still no feeling of euphoria," he dictated to his diary Feb. 28, 1991. Saddam Hussein, he recognized, remained a threat. "He's got to go," Bush concluded.
It took nearly 16 years, but he's finally gone. And with Hussein's execution in Baghdad, so is the chief nemesis of the Bush family, a man who bedeviled father-and-son presidents and in different ways dominated both of their administrations. The long, tortured arc of the Bush-Hussein relationship that shaped recent U.S. history finally came to a close with the snap of a noose.
Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death in November for his role in the 1982 execution of about 150 people in the Shiite town of Dujail. Get background, photos and video about Hussein's rise to power and ultimate fall.
If there is a feeling of euphoria, or satisfaction, or perhaps just relief, neither Bush is expressing it publicly this weekend. President Bush went to bed Friday night without waiting for the execution and left it to an aide to release a statement praising the Iraqi people for "bringing Saddam Hussein to justice." His father remained silent. But Hussein's death removed only the man. The forces unleashed by the epic struggle remain as powerful and crippling as ever for two countries.
The timing of the execution, coming as the president searches for a new strategy to turn around a war he says the United States is not winning, could serve as a reminder of its origins. Bush has frequently cited Hussein's tyranny to justify his decision to invade Iraq. Within days, though, the death toll of U.S. troops will surely pass 3,000, a grim milestone that will trigger further national introspection. The cost of overthrowing Hussein and ending his reign of terror continues to mount, and few in Washington hold out faith that that will change anytime soon.
"The sacrifice has been worth it," Bush said at a year-end news conference nine days before the execution. A few moments later, he added: "I haven't questioned whether or not it was right to take Saddam Hussein out." He stopped himself. "I mean, I've questioned it -- I've come to the conclusion that it was the right decision."
Bush and other architects of the war have long maintained that it was nothing personal. "I personally never thought of it that way, nor did I think the president saw it that way," said Douglas J. Feith, the former undersecretary of defense who was a key player in going to war. "When Saddam was talked about, he was talked about as a threat to the United States, not as a personal problem of the Bush family."
Ron Kaufman, a White House aide to the first President Bush, said his ex-boss does not dwell on Hussein. "I'm sure like most Americans, he'll be glad the guy's gone," he said. "The world will be a better place now, a safer place. But I don't think he'll spend any more time thinking about it than you or I."
Yet the history of animosity between the Bushes and Hussein is hard to ignore. The relationship actually began as one of pragmatic friendship in the 1980s, when Hussein was at war with the main U.S. enemy in the region, Iran, and George H.W. Bush was vice president in an administration that offered him help. A 1992 New Yorker article suggested that Bush, through Arab intermediaries, advised Hussein to intensify the bombing of Iran.
Hussein soon became too much to handle. "People came to understand him as someone who was much less stable and someone who could not be trusted," said Craig Fuller, chief of staff to the elder Bush when he was vice president. Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 proved a strategic miscalculation that put him and the Bushes forever on opposite sides.
The elder Bush wrongly assumed that Iraqis would overthrow Hussein, and his decision not to march to Baghdad after freeing Kuwait would haunt him and his son. An unbowed Hussein defied the international community, and in April 1993, when Bush went to Kuwait for a hero's welcome, a group of Iraqis crossed the border in what was called a thwarted attempt to kill him. President Bill Clinton launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against Iraqi targets in retaliation.
Among those on that trip who could have been killed were Barbara Bush and Laura Bush. George W. Bush had stayed in Texas, where he was running the Texas Rangers baseball team and preparing to run for governor. Some later questioned the seriousness of the assassination attempt or its connections to Baghdad. But the incident clearly was a searing moment for the Bush family.
By the time the younger Bush ran for president, he appeared determined not to repeat the mistake he believed his father made with Hussein. "No one envisioned him still standing," the candidate told BBC in November 1999. "It's time to finish the task."
At a debate a couple of weeks later, Bush was more explicit. "If I found that in any way, shape, or form that he was developing weapons of mass destruction, I'd take him out," he said.
At Bush's first National Security Council meeting after taking office, he seemed to some aides to be ready to go. "From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," Paul O'Neill, Bush's first treasury secretary, later told CBS News. In Ron Suskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty," O'Neill was quoted as saying that Bush told aides to prepare to remove Hussein: "That was the tone of it, the president saying . . . 'Go find me a way to do this.' "
Others on the inside came to a similar conclusion. In a memo in March 2002, Peter Ricketts, a top British official, sounded skeptical of U.S. motivations: "For Iraq, 'regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."
That impression was fueled by both father and son that fall. "I hate Saddam Hussein, and I don't hate a lot of people," George H.W. Bush told CNN. "I don't hate easily, but I think he is -- as I say, his word is no good, and he is a brute. He has used poison gas on his own people. So, there's nothing redeeming about this man, and I have nothing but hatred in my heart for him."
Six days after that aired, his son mused about Hussein at a Texas fundraiser. "There's no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us," he said. "There's no doubt he can't stand us. After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad at one time."
Bush later talked with then-Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) aboard Air Force One about assassinating Hussein, saying he would repeal the executive order banning assassination of foreign leaders if intelligence gave him a clear shot. "The fact that he tried to kill my father and my wife shows the nature of the man," Bush told interviewers in March 2003. "And he not only tried to kill my father and wife, he's killed thousands of his own citizens." But he denied a vendetta. "Nah, no," he said. "I'm doing my job as the president, based upon the threats that face this country."
When Bush launched the invasion weeks later, he ordered it to start earlier than planned with a missile strike targeting Hussein. The Iraqi leader survived, but U.S. troops quickly toppled his government. Soldiers went to the Al Rashid Hotel and destroyed a mosaic, of the elder Bush's face over the slogan "Bush Is Criminal," that Hussein had laid in the lobby entrance so every guest would step on it.
Eight months later, other soldiers found Hussein in a "spider hole." "President Bush sends his regards," one soldier told the disheveled Iraqi leader.
Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld delivered the news in Washington. "Mr. President, the first reports are not always accurate," he started cautiously.
"This sounds like it's going to be good news," Bush interrupted.
Rumsfeld said reports indicate "that we got Saddam Hussein."
"Well, that is good news."
Aides said the president made a point of not personalizing it. "I never heard him take any particular relish in Saddam's capture or the fate that obviously awaited him," said Matthew Scully, a former White House speechwriter who helped prepare Bush's remarks about Hussein's capture. "I remember vividly that the president's reaction that day was kind of businesslike. He always saw Saddam as part of the larger picture."
Still, in his White House study, the president keeps a memento -- the pistol taken from Hussein when he was captured. If there ever was a duel, it is now over. |
|
