Several muslim and Turkish TV stations are reporting the same thing!
Man, I sure hope so!
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Apparently, Blair has acknowledged it (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1115282,00.html)
Saddam was wearing a fake white beard... What a way to go!
Posted by deadcujo (Member # 13) on :
And in his hometown nonetheless. Somehow I don't think that was the best place for him to go hiding at.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, he was considered a "hero" (somehow) by the morons of his hometown. They hid him.
Now comes the real question: what will we DO with him? If tried before the World Court, his MAXIMUM sentence for killing all those people would only be fifteen years. Cute huh? I say, try him and throw him into one of his own mass graves.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Actually I am against the death penalty in general.
But in some instances, like this one, I am not really sure anymore.
But it also feels like one death might not be enough for a dictator as cruel as Saddam.
How can human beings become something like Saddam, Bin Laden, Stalin, Hitler and the like???
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"what will we DO with him?"
Draw his blood and run a DNA comparison against Uday's and Qusay's genetic material to insure that it's really Saddam and not one of his umpteen billion doppelg�ngers, for starters.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Has something like this EVER happened before? The capture of a brutal dictator, I mean. Don't they have a tendancy to commit suicide?
I tend against the death penalty, but from a legal point of view I think he should be tried in Iraq under Iraqi law, once such law is instituted. I'm sure the US government will be happy to hold him until then.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "what will we DO with him?"
Draw his blood and run a DNA comparison against Uday's and Qusay's genetic material to ensure that he's really Saddam and not one of his umpteen billion doppelg�ngers, for starters.
That's been confirmed. Currently, there's video on CNN of Saddam being medically examined- he lookes like total ass but it's him. He was hiding in a "spiderhole" bunker. The general population is taking to the streets celebrating! About time.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Oh yeah, it's him. Just look at the eyes, and that nose. The latter is easily faked, but not that gaze.
Yes, what to do with him? The Americans will never turn him over to the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague (where they're currently trying to, well, try Slobodan Milosevic), because he's their prisoner.
But if they try to set up some system to prosecute him on their own, that'll establish some precedent about all the Camp Delta internees, and they don't want that - they seem quite happy to let them rot. Dumping Saddam in Guantanamo won't work either.
The interrogations are going to be interesting. Suppose he really didn't have any WMDs left - if he tells them that, will they believe him? Nope. I wonder how far they'll be prepared to, er, press him on the issue. Not that I'm particularly concerned about a torturer getting tortured.
So, in the meantime, let's all sit back and watch the Bush Administration gleefully celebrate This Week's Reason Why We Invaded Iraq. 8)
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I guess they didn't shoot on sight.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I agree with Omega that he should be tried under Iraqi law once it has been instituted.
Now the only remaining question is: where are those freaking WMDs? Surely, Saddam isn't going to say "I hid em at my mom's house...."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
They raided the "spiderhole" (essentially a pit covered with bricks with an air vent and nothing else) looked around, saw nothing, then noticed a suspicous pile of bricks and literall had to use shovels and dig the gutless fuck out. He was hiding in dirt: literally in a hole.
They should show every Iraqui how this bastard was caught.
He didint fight at all or attempt suicide (guess he had a gun that he never even brought out). He also had $750,000 in US cash on him. So much for "Never surrender" nad "They wont take him alive" talk he's said before the invasion huh?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
And if he says "they're in Iran" or "they're in Lybia" or "they're in Russia" or "they're in Syria" or a combination of the above, then what? This isn't going to blow over quietly...
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Invade Russia... Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Get a load of the PRAVDA take on this... Could they be bigger fuckers? It reads like Al Jeezera.
Someone post that pic into Capcoms Reloaded! Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Not really, it reads like most non-US sources: sceptical.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
This is good news! A brutal dictator finally has been captured and will (presumably) be brought to justice. It is truly a great day.
However, I'm afraid this will not lead to decreased attacks on US forces. It was a blow to the guerillas, but it won't stop them.
(Man, didn't Saddam look like James Bond after he was released form the North Korean prison in "Die Another Day?" Of course, he's shaved now, still keeping his trademark mustache...)
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
I just hope this takes a little bit of the wind out of the sails of Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, and their Ilk.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Has something like this EVER happened before? The capture of a brutal dictator, I mean. Don't they have a tendancy to commit suicide?
Milosevic. He's on tribunal in The Hague. He's alarmingly good at defending himself in court, so it's taking a bit long.
quote:Get a load of the PRAVDA take on this... Could they be bigger fuckers? It reads like Al Jeezera.
Yes, and FOX News reads like fascist propaganda.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, that's to be expected as much as PRADA, I'm sad to say.
Funny thing is: Once we're rid of Bush (unlikley with this victory under his collective belt) and a democrat administration is elected, FOX will either have to change it's tune or become even more right wing.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I think there is a tiny differebce between PRADA and PRAVDA. I just can't remember exactly what it is...
It looks like he will be tried under Iraqi law, which is probably the best solution, given the US's aversion to international law. Of course, there is the question of whether or not he'll get a fair trial. I don't think he should be executed; that'll just make him a martyr. Life imprisonment somewhere would probably be the best option.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"I just hope this takes a little bit of the wind out of the sails of Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, and their Ilk."
No, what would take REALLY the wind out of their sails would be 1) a formal denouncement of Rumsfeld's Old and New Europe rhetoric, 2) a new UN (which was deemed redundant half a year ago, remember?) resolution granting the invasion that much sought-after legitimacy, 3) piles of WMDs, 4) the Iraqis unanimously accepting the coalition forces as "liberators" instead of viewing them as "occupiers", 5) unrestricted military and economic support from allies overseas to plug the HALF A TRILLION dollar gap in the US budget, 6) bringing an end to all suicide bombings in Iraq as well as presenting a constitution that the Arabic Sunnis AND the Kurdish Sunnis AND the Arabic Shiites AND the Ba'ath nationalists AND the islamic fundamentalists AND the other religious minorities can ALL live with (nation building, as Bush is so fond of saying), 7) a 180 degree reversal of mr. President's shortsighted and irresponsible domestic policies, 8) eliminating the Taliban (who are on the rise again in now largely-forgotten Afghanistan) once and for all and FINALLY capturing Bin Laden, 9) allotting the UN a larger role in postwar Iraq, 10) defusing the Joseph Wilson scandal re: those enriched uranium deals, 11) severing all ties with Saudi-Arabia (only eighteen of the twenty 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, after all), 12) restoring the crumbled pillars of NATO after Bush broke with the multilateral orientation that typified previous adminstrations, and 13) a viable space program. All in under six months, of course.
Keep dreaming. B)
[ December 14, 2003, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Pardon the interjection of cynicism, but when do we get to capture the guy who was actually behind the 9/11 attacks? Remember those, the source of all this upright American anger?
And, to bring another point back up again, but where are the WMD�s? These weapons for which the impending doom was too great too ignore?
Hopefully though, the Bush family vendetta is over and done with.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Oh my, where do I start? (Number 1 you say? You did give me a nice numbered list after all. Thanks for that. I appreciate it when people organize their arguments. No sarcasm meant there. A semester of reading disorganized cases from courts and you appreciate the little things like people numbering stuff.) This really isn�t the place to give the fullest account of all my objections to each of these statements, but I�ll try to give a concise answer to each and we can agree to disagree. I would also point out that I think there are two issues I see in your response: the war and the economy. The two are linked, but I was trying to point out that capturing Saddam might remove some of the criticism of current policy regarding the war. But in the spirit of debate, I�ll respond to each. That said, though, I�m not looking to start a flame war here. I just want to give the other side too. I�m not going to respond to anything arising out of this exchange from here on out unless it is patently false.
1. If I recall correctly, when he said that at NATO headquarters, the context he meant that in was the admission of new states, e.g. Poland, Romania, the Baltic states, versus the established states. But I understand quite well that we all know he thinks lowly of the Rhineland nations� policies. No argument there. Ultimately, this is a diplomatic argument over style. How much it�s hurt us is a counterfactual argument we can�t know with metaphysical certitude. But I think it�s given more significance than an underlying difference between the United States and the continental EU. See number 12 below.
2. I won�t get into an argument over public international law here. I will let the statement of the Dean of Princeton�s foreign affairs school speak for me. Regarding the invasion of Iraq, she called it �illegal but legitimate.� I think it�s important to see in international law the much greater importance of the second over the first. Again, see number 12 below.
3. Just give the interrogators time. It�s been less than 24 hours since we got him. On a related point, just because something is a weapon of mass destruction kills masses of people doesn�t mean it has to be big. A vial of the right stuff hidden in the desert with the help of a GPS would make it unfindable unless we nab the burryer. On a more ultimate point: WMD are not the only reason we went in. Even Christopher �Mother Theresa is a fraud� Hitchens endorsed the war. It�s the difference between motivation and justification. All that is sufficient for the policy to be acceptable is to have a single good justification. The motivation is irrelevant.
4. Again, give things a little time. Nabbing Saddam might get us that yet. I�m optimistic, but just remember that the people, like the polls that measure them, are fickle. Give it a few weeks and we can discuss this more.
5. Give the economy time to rev up. We�ve got near double digit growth last quarter. A few years of growth like in the 1990s, and we can get things solvent again. I�m not going to get into economic policy here. I�ll leave the debate to people like Robert Samuelson, Larry Kudlow, and Paul Krugman. But I think we�re going to see a lot more good happen over the next 6 months than the Left wants.
6. Suicide bombings are linked to supporters of Saddam (again, give things time to settle with this and let it sink in) and groups like Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad. I think more is going on with the latter than we�re let on to. And with good reason. I say give them more time to separate the two out; then we can focus our attention on the latter. The constitution part will be made easier with the capture of Saddam, but remember we are losing good Iraqis over there every day to assassinations. Let�s see how much people come out of their shell with Saddam captured.
7. Hmmm. That�s a little too broad to be answerable. But this gets back to my point about my earlier post: not saying that this will take all the wind out of their sails, only that it will take a little out.
8. Bin Laden is a red herring now according to most intelligence agencies reports I�ve read about second hand. The real catch is Zawahiri (sp?). But now that we have this significant thorn out of our paw, I�m sure we can start going after Al Qaeda a little harder. Let me also say something else: I think you�re argument looks a lot like �unless we can go after all of them at once, don�t go after any of them.� Have to choose your battles. Round 2, US. Round 3 is coming up. You can�t fight everyone at once.
9. When has the UN ever, on its own, succeeded in building up a nation from scratch like Iraq? Never. Kofi Annan has said he�s not putting his people on the ground until things start getting safer. Things will now I think, and they can do a lot of good when things are settled down, but they are batting .000 when it comes to nation building. Leave it to the people with proven track records (German, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, etc)
10. Again, this gets to the argument over the sufficiency of single justifications. Just because one piece of evidence didn�t come in just right didn�t mean we didn�t have other reasons to go. All you need is one.
11. I�m not denying that the House of Saud hasn�t been very cooperative, and I would like to see them take a little more responsibility for spreading Islamofascism around the world, but I am going to leave it to the professionals whether we ought to be ripping down a country like we might do if we cut Saudi Arabia out like that.
12. This is topic WAY too big to address here. But I have an essay from Francis Fukuyama you ought to read about the underlying difference between the US and EU. This is not an argument over unilateralism but over the legitimacy upon which nations are founded. Before you start arguing over unilateralism again, I ask that you please read this essay: http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL02.htm
13. Methinks you might have an interest in this, being a Star Trek fan? I would like to see a space program more attuned to interstellar traffic, given that we have placed all our species�s eggs in this basket we call Earth, but something tells me we need more basic science before we can do that. I would rather see more funding for that than more shuttle flights.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I just heard on CNN. I almost feel sorry for the buggger. Almost.
I'm curious as to what will happen to him now. Will he be tried in an Iraqi court as the news program said? Or will he be shipped off to the States? I think that it is a good idea to have an Iraqi court try him. Although he may us this as an oppurtunity to get off easy. I wouldn't put it past him to have some kind of arrangement with the Iraqi court system.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
a 180 degree reversal of mr. President's shortsighted and irresponsible domestic policies
I'm sorry, but what exactly are you referring to?
Oh, and the Saudis that hit the WTC? I don't know the entire list, but bin Laden at least was an exile from that country. You're suggesting we hold a country responsible for the actions of criminals because they just happened to be born there.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I don't think it's a good idea for Hussein to be tried in either an Iraqi court or a US court. After all, when you try a normal criminal, do you let the victim be the judge? Do you let the cops who arrested him be the jury?
The only problem is the fact that anything resembling an international court is anathema to the US government. It's funny how, when we get to go beat up other countries, we're all about getting involved in world affairs. But as soon as someone suggests that people (including ourselves) might be answerable to someone other than us, we don't want anything to do with it.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I hear Saddam's gonna hire Mark Garegos (maybe I misheard).
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
David:
You're right, those are the major issues I have beefs with. I don't have time to reply to each point in detail, so I'll agree to agree to disagree with you on most of them, but I do want to thank you for responding with such civility. I wasn't expecting that, to be honest.
1) No, I suppose not. But it does illustrate how strained US-EU relations have become, and I don't think that's a road we want to go down further.
2) That's a dangerous stance to adopt. What is considered legitimate by one nation might not be by another, and I don't very much like the idea of nations being judge, jury, AND executioner. It sets precedents that are undesirable at best. What good are international laws if they can be arbitrarily broken without reprisals?
3) When motivation becomes irrelevant, so does justification. See 2).
4) I think the population of Iraq is too diverse for that to happen in a few weeks (if ever), wether Saddam is out of the picture or not.
8) No, but it reeks of a double standard to only go after a select few, play the human rights card along the way, and then ignore the rest.
10) That's not how it was spun by the administration, though, and it bugs me greatly.
12) Fantastic essay, even if I don't share Fukuyama's conclusion that:
quote:Nor is it possible to argue in principle that if a nation is threatened with terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction it does not have a right to defend itself unilaterally. It is legitimate to argue over whether such a threat exists. But if it does, it would be irresponsible for any government to depend on international law for self-defence.
But this echoes my sentiments exactly:
quote:First, if the United States is going to shift to a preemptive policy towards international terrorism, there ought to be a thinking-through and enunciation of a broader strategy that among other things indicates the limits of this new doctrine. What kinds of threats, and what standards of evidence, will justify the use of this kind of power? Presumably, the US is not thinking of unilaterally attacking at least two of the three legs of the axis of evil; if this is the case, why not at least spell this out? The United States is in the process of scaring itself to death with regard to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. A more realistic appraisal of future threats will raise the bar to preemption, while keeping it in the arsenal.
Second, the US needs to take some responsibility for global public bads like carbon emissions. The Kyoto Protocol is a very flawed document for any number of reasons, and the link between carbon emissions and observed warming has not been conclusively proven. On the other hand, it has not been disproven, either, and it would seem only prudent to hedge against the possibility that it is true. Apart from global warming, there are any number of good reasons why the United States ought to tax energy use much more heavily than it does: to pay for the negative externality of having to go to war every decade or so to keep open access to Middle Eastern oil; to promote development of alternative energy sources; and to create some policy space in dealing with Saudi Arabia, which does not seem to be a particular friend of the United States after September 11. Americans may not ever be convinced that they should make serious economic sacrifices for the sake of international agreements, but they may be brought around to an equivalent position if they see sufficient self-interest in doing so.
Finally, there should be a walking back of the steel and agricultural subsidy decisions taken earlier this year. No one in Washington ever pretended that there was a reason for making them in the first place other than pure political expediency, and there can be no US leadership on any important issue related to the global economy in their wake. Now that Trade Promotion Authority exists, the United States needs to use it as a mandate to act forcefully.
13) This was meant more in jest over Bush's not-so believable plans to announce a renewed push into space than anything else, but yes, I'm interested... so long as it's a (sorry) multilateral effort.
Omega:
"I'm sorry, but what exactly are you referring to?"
Nice bait, but I'm not biting. Better luck next time.
"You're suggesting we hold a country responsible for the actions of criminals because they just happened to be born there."
No, I'm suggesting you hold the country responsible for those actions because they were endorsed or at the very least encouraged by its government. Also note that "severing ties" does not equal "invading to change regime". You make a lousy devil's advocate, you know that?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
No, I'm serious. You refer to short-sighted domestic policy, and I really want to know what you're talking about.
I'm suggesting you hold the country responsible for those actions because they were endorsed or at the very least encouraged by its government.
Is there evidence of this?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Well, I seem to remember a few months ago that murals in Iraq, painted generally from the perspective of "Yay! A bunch of people who are of the same religion as us struck a deadly blow against a country none of us like which is full of infidels!" were being seen as being proof-positive that the Iraqi government was responsible or culpable for the events of 9/11.
What's that word that means finding pleasure in the misfortune of others? I can't recall it offhand, but it certainly doesn't equal being responsible for the misfortune of others.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Perhaps there is only one question to be asked in Saddam's Interrogations: "pssst.... where is your oil?"
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Cartman: I was impressed with your civilty too. I had just been reading some of the posts from the past few weeks and saw the flames that had errupted, so I wanted to put a disclaimer in there that I was not going to keep it going. But since I had so much fun reading your responses, I am going to break my promise and say a very few more words.
2. The concept of legitimacy really bugged me when I took international law. You're right, there is no objective scale by which we can measure every act of questionable legitimacy. It really raised my eyebrow when I read that a lot of countries were secretly glad the Israelis bombed Iraq's nuclear plant in 1983 (I think). They considered post hoc to be a legitimate act because the results were good. The problem is how ex ante you do it, and I really don't have an answer. The only consolation I can give is that, so far, the use of preemptive strike has worked well enough to not obliterate humanity.
3. I have to say I was extremely impressed you went and read Fukuyama's essay! I have one on this very topic if you're interested. It's much shorter than Fukuyama's, I promise. http://www.techcentralstation.com/060503B.html. I would have linked it before but I thought the post was getting too long as it is. Perhaps what I'm reading in your post is something we discussed in my jurisprudence class all this past semester: the is/ought distinction. The gist of it that while we want people to act with good motives, law is not a weildy tool to achieving that end; religion is better suited to it.
10. That's one thing I hate about the news media: they're not very good at keeping two thoughts in our heads at once. You're right, one argument tends to get emphasized to the exclusion of others at any time, unless you're a news junkie like me and try to read everything. The arguments were being made, they just weren't being communicated very well. I would have liked to have seen a nice poster shown to the media of all the reasons we should have gone to war and have it make it on the nightly news so everyone in America could read them all at once.
12. I'm curious about your response to Fukuyama's essay. Where do you think he went wrong in it?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: What's that word that means finding pleasure in the misfortune of others? I can't recall it offhand, but it certainly doesn't equal being responsible for the misfortune of others.
Shadansomethingorother. Shameful Joy in German, if I remember my Simpsons episodes.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I don't think it's a good idea for Hussein to be tried in either an Iraqi court or a US court. After all, when you try a normal criminal, do you let the victim be the judge? Do you let the cops who arrested him be the jury?
The only problem is the fact that anything resembling an international court is anathema to the US government. It's funny how, when we get to go beat up other countries, we're all about getting involved in world affairs. But as soon as someone suggests that people (including ourselves) might be answerable to someone other than us, we don't want anything to do with it.
Well, the Iraqui people sure wint be getting justice if Saddam is tried by the world court. Remember Melosivtch's "Iron Lady"? She pled guilty as an accessory in 3 MILLION deaths and she got nine whole years. Would you settle for that sentence of someone murdered your family? That's about 30 seconds jail term per person murdered. You'll wait longer than that on the phone any given day. We (U.S., Australlia and Britan)sentence people to life in prison for ONE murder and the Iraquis sentence people to death for the same thing. So where does the world court get off judging by the standards of France and Italy when the agreeved parties (and in fact Saddam himself) judge on a much harsher system?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Schadenfreude
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You refer to Saddam? Hardly. He was kickin' back with a cigar as he ordered gass attacks of the Kurds and was living the good life in several palaces while children he put in prison wasted away.
The guy's right up there with Stalin and Hitler. i'm cool with the world court trying Saddam as long as every murder becomes a seperate charge and isint piled into a tidy little package. People should hear exactly what he's done.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Anyone want to bet on how long it will take Rob to join in this debate?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Aw, poor babies... Not dancing in the streets like they were on 9/11. Too bad, so sad.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"We (U.S., Australlia and Britan)sentence people to life in prison for ONE murder and the Iraquis sentence people to death for the same thing. "So where does the world court get off judging by the standards of France and Italy when the agreeved parties (and in fact Saddam himself) judge on a much harsher system?"
Well, you seem to be assuming that Britain and its descendants do justice the "right" way, and others to it "wrong". One look at the US prison system kills, buries, and desecrates the grave of that theory.
Now, granted, I'll agree that someone convicted of what I believe is typically termed "crimes against humanity" shouldn't be getting released from punishment anytime within their life. And, if the international court is being too lenient, maybe we ought to get involved in it and see whether they'll change their minds. But don't just assume that the US and Britain & Co. are the be-all and end-all of human civilization. If a significant percentage of the world disagrees with you, isn't it better to discuss it openly, then to yell "He's our prisoner, and we're going home!"?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
We'll sell Saddam to the world court to cover our tab for Iraq's reconstruction, okay?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Well, there's always the Napoleon option; we just bung him on an isolated island somewhere with copious quantities of arsenic flavoured wall paper...
The problem with a trial in Iraq is that the legal system there is a little uncertain there at the moment. Will they continue with the law as it was under Saddam? I doubt it. Which really leaves them with two choices: a Western based system or Sharia. And I can't see the US allowing Sharia law. While I can certainly see the attraction of executing him, I don't think it'd be wise. It would just make him into a martyr. Equally, though, I don't think the sentences handed down by the international courts are long enough (Does anyone know why ther're so short?). A special international tribunal might be the best option, along the lines of Nuremburg.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
There's evidence for every possible conspiracy theory. Including the involvment of the Pakistani government, the CIA, aliens and Satan himself.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Satan? Wouldnt that be "The West" in general according to Wahabbi dogma?
Just load one bullett into a revolver. Each of the victims family menbers gets to pull the trigger once utill justice is served. At sveral milion tries, there's still a slight* chance he wouldnt be killed after all.
*Slight refers to statictically insignifigant.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Most people welcomed the news, and hoped the former Iraqi president's capture would put a stop to the killings in Iraq and bring peace.
quote: Ms Rizvi, a Pakistani manager and consultant in the automobile industry, said: "The capture of Saddam will not benefit anyone except America. They wanted to capture him and this will not help in anyway the international peace or reconstruction in Iraq."
quote: Ali Al Jallaf, a UAE government official, said: "Capturing Saddam will not change the current situation in Iraq in any way. The question now is: will the American troops withdraw and hand over Iraq to its people or not?"
quote: Salahuddin Al Kadiki, a Canadian of Libyan origin, said: "Saddam's capture is a happy end of a sad drama. I hope it will be a peaceful start for a bright future."
quote: In Abu Dhabi, Abdul Monem Hariri, a Syrian mobile phone dealer, said: "I don't think the capture of Saddam means the end of the Iraqi resistance and the internal problems in Iraq. Saddam is not Iraq and Iraq is not Saddam. The problem is the US occupation."
Tawfiq Gaddah, an old Arab truck driver, was still unable to believe the news. "I don't believe it. The one they showed on television is Saddam's lookalike. Saddam cannot be captured and will never be captured."
Rafa Khalil, a Syrian expatriate, said: "It is a happy day� now we all take a rest, the Iraqis and Iraq's neighbours do not have to fear anymore".
Palestinian expatriate Abu Baker Abu Qatish said: "This was an eventual end for Saddam like death is a natural end for every human being.
"He was bound to get caught and I expected it - but I believe that Saddam had a right to fight for his life. If I was in his shoes I would fight till death."
quote: "It is happy news but we wish it were the Iraqi people who had captured him, not [US] troops, because this will give Bush a boost in the upcoming election," said Bahraini salesman Husayn Jafar as news of Saddam's capture swept through Arab capitals.
quote: Saddam may have been seen as a dictator who oppressed his people, but many also saw him as the only Arab leader who stood up to the US, which they said rode roughshod through the region.
quote: "It's a black day in history. I'm saying so not because Saddam is an Arab but because he is the only man who said 'no' to American injustice in the Middle East," said Sadiq Husam, a 33-year-old taxi driver in the West Bank city of Ram Allah.
quote: But in Kuwait, occupied by Iraq in 1990-1991, the reaction was one of joy. Some cars honked horns along a seaside road that during the occupation had been lined with Iraqi army positions.
"We are so happy they got him," said Kuwaiti Muhammad al-Hudiab, cruising the Arabian Gulf seafront in his jeep.
"The people of Iraq have been brainwashed by the Saddam regime. They need another 20 years to realise that the Kuwaitis are not to blame for the Iraqis' plight."
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
An interesting take on the capture,
Saddam was a prisoner Don't know if it is true, they are claiming that Saddam had a gun on him when he captured, but it also isn't the first time a gun was planted on a suspect. It was also said that he was turned in by family members, has anyone seen I.D. on the men captured with Hussain, were they family members?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Saddam cannot be captured and will never be captured.
Why am I getting flashes of Arthur? "The once and future bloody dictator from hell?"
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
The link Grokca provided is certainly interesting and is one possibility. In particular, the comment about the capture being a matter of national pride for the US; no mention was made in the initial press briefing about the substantial role of Kurdish intelligence and troops. Incidentally, I'm quite glad that the Dear Leader persuaded Bush to tone down the triumphalism in his comments. The 'We've got him' was inappropriate and unprofessional, not to mention completely lacking in style.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Evil always has a successor ready to carry on the run of destruction. There is someone, somewhere, who is of the same mind ready to begin his/her reign of terror. The true question is whether or not there will be someone willing to pay the price of stopping them.
"All that is neccessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Or for said good men to aid it.
"Is there evidence of this?"
If you construe "encouraged by its government" as "certain elements within the Saudi royal family payed Bin Laden protection money to keep him of their backs and are in the habit of funneling large amounts of credits to Islamic fundamentalists", then yes, there is. The trails invariably lead back to S-A, anyway.
This is from a Newsweek article published 11/23/2002 by Michael Isikoff:
quote:The FBI is investigating whether the Saudi Arabian government�using the bank account of the wife of a senior Saudi diplomat�sent tens of thousands of dollars to two Saudi students in the United States who provided assistance to two of the September 11 hijackers, according to law-enforcement sources.
THE BUREAU, THEY SAY, has uncovered financial records showing a steady stream of payments to the family of one of the students, Omar Al Bayoumi. The money moved into the family�s bank account beginning in early 2000, just a few months after hijackers Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi arrived in Los Angeles from an Al Qaeda planning summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, according to the sources. Within days of the terrorists� arrival in the United State, Al Bayoumi befriended the two men who would eventually hijack American Flight 77, throwing them a welcoming party in San Diego and guaranteeing their lease on an apartment next door to his own. Al Bayoumi also paid $1,500 to cover the first two months of rent for Al Midhar and Alhazmi, although officials said it is possible that the hijackers later repaid the money.
Sources familiar with the evidence say the payments�amounting to about $3,500 a month�came from an account at Washington�s Riggs Bank in the name of Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, the wife of Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and the daughter of the late Saudi King Faisal. After Al Bayoumi left the country in July 2001�two months before the September 11 terror attacks�payments for roughly the same amount began flowing every month to Osama Basnan, a close associate of Al Bayoumi�s who also befriended the hijackers. A federal law-enforcement source told NEWSWEEK that Basnan�who was recently convicted of visa fraud and is awaiting deportation�was a known �Al Qaeda sympathizer� who �celebrated the heroes of September 11� at a party after the attacks and openly talked about �what a wonderful, glorious day it had been.�
Administration officials stressed repeatedly in interviews that they do not know the purpose of the payments from Princess Haifa�s account. It is also uncertain whether the money was given to the hijackers by Al Bayoumi or Basman. White House sources also raised a number of other cautionary notes, saying that it was not uncommon for wealthy Saudis to provide financial assistance to struggling Saudi families in the United States. �The facts are unclear, and there�s no need to rush to judgement,� said one administration official.
But other sources describe the financial records as �explosive� and say the information has spurred an intense, behind-the-scenes battle between congressional leaders and the Bush administration over whether evidence highly embarrassing to the Saudi government should be publicly disclosed�especially at a time that the White House is aggressively seeking Saudi support for a possible war against Iraq. �This is a matter of the foreign-policy interests of the United States,� said another administration official, who cited the need to prevent a rift in the U.S.-Saudi relationship.
A spokesperson for Princess Haifa said �she will cooperate fully with the United States.� The princess hasn�t been asked about the payments by any representatives of the U.S. government, and she wasn�t aware of the allegations until today, her spokesperson said.
Administration officials expressed concerns that premature disclosure of the evidence of the financial payments could jeopardize the ongoing FBI probe, especially the bureau�s efforts to apprehend and develop a case against Al Bayoumi. Upon leaving the United States last year, Al Bayoumi flew to Great Britain where he enrolled in a graduate-level business program at Birmingham�s Aston University. He was arrested by New Scotland Yard after September 11 but adamantly denied any connection to the attacks or knowledge of the hijacker�s links to Al Qaeda and was released a week later for lack of evidence. He is now believed to be back in Saudi Arabia. Law-enforcement officials say they are still intensely investigating his activities, suspecting that he may have served as an �advance man� for the hijackers.
Make of that what you will.
"I'm curious about your response to Fukuyama's essay. Where do you think he went wrong in it?"
Well, for one thing, I don't think that terrorism, which is as subjective a term as legitimacy, can be fought the way it is being fought. Furthermore, where does self-defense end and military aggression begin? How do you seperate it from political opportunism? Are preemptive wars even justifiable under the present circumstances? Those questions shouldn't have gone unanswered.
"He was kickin' back with a cigar as he ordered gass attacks of the Kurds and was living the good life in several palaces while children he put in prison wasted away."
Of course, if you want to try Saddam for what he did to the Kurds, then by extension you'll also have to try the CIA for supplying the gas.
[ December 15, 2003, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Just load one bullett into a revolver. Each of the victims family menbers gets to pull the trigger once utill justice is served. At sveral milion tries, there's still a slight* chance he wouldnt be killed after all.
Only if this revolver has several million chambers.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Well, there's always the Napoleon option; we just bung him on an isolated island somewhere with copious quantities of arsenic flavoured wall paper..."
Only problem is that, with Napoléon, they had to do it twice. First time, he came back.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Yes, but we know which island to use now. And not to allow him a 1000 strong bodyguard.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: Yes, but we know which island to use now.
Bikini Atoll?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
An interesting theory: what if, during the trial, Saddam mentions all the US aid he got? Including his visit with Donald Rumsfeld in the 1980's?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I can tell you right now that any examination of Saddam's priors will shed an entirely new light on his victors for the Iraqi people.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
They won't let him. And if he does, it'll go totally unreported in the US press. Bush's reelection chances depend on this going exactly right, they're not going to take chances on inconvenient things like the odd home truth coming out during the trial. . .
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
We supplied Sadaam with weapons that he then went on to use in mass murder and attempted genocide. We also left him in power for a decade or two after this happened. These are bad things. However, what would you have us do about it now? Kick over his government and put him on trial?
We supported Russia against Germany, Iran against Russia, Iraq against Iran. It's taken us this long, but we've cleaned up our own mess. What else would you have us do?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
So, are you saying that it will come up in the trial, the government will admit to it, and the people will forgive them?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
THe US is guilty of poor judgment to say the least but we chose the lesser of two weavles.
It's pretty common knowledge that we've given Iraq aid and that Saddam used it murder his own people. Be sure to point that same finger at all the major military powers and most of the minor players as well. I'm sure that Iraq's weapons and munitions were made by all the NATO powers and definitely the former USSR and current Russia as well. Suppling aid to creeps is morally shakey to be sure but Saddam chose to use them: mainly on his own people and his neighbors.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I just have one question: why is Saddam not being treated as a POW?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Probably because we never declared war, so they figure they can do whatever they want.
"We supported ... Iraq against Iran."
And, don't forget, Iran against Iraq at the same time.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
And Coke against Pepsi. Saddam's not a POW exactly....he'd have a new classification: we never nabbed a country's leader before (well, Hirothito but we gave him a walk to hold Japan together).
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"THe US is guilty of poor judgment to say the least but we chose the lesser of two weavles."
Some would argue that choosing between weevils at all is poor judgment in and of itself.
"Be sure to point that same finger at all the major military powers and most of the minor players as well."
Oh please. The US alone has more skeletons in its lockers than there are graves in Iraq. You're right, the European players don't have the moral high ground here, but most of those fingers will still be pointing at you.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Weevils, it's spelled. Where was that joke from again?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
See how they run. Like ants, after their anthill has been kicked over, they try to find some shelter, to make some 'good' come out of the damage that has been done to them.
They thought we'd never find Saddam. They were wrong. Now they're terrified he might say something they don't want to hear, so they create this 'hope' that He'll instead talk about crap 20 years old. They thought the tax cuts wouldn't help the economy. Growth up 8.2%. Now they're terrified it'll continue. And worse, they're terrified now that we might catch BinLaden, and make the whole trifecta, before 11/04.
Meh, somthing big will happen between now and then. Someone will strap a nuke to an oil-tanker and cook the gulf-coast, or there will be a massive flu outbreak that kills hundreds of thosands... Somthing.
Watch.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
So, are you saying that it will come up in the trial, the government will admit to it, and the people will forgive them?
I'm just asking a question. Yeah, we screwed up in the past. THIS TIME we did the right thing. What do you want us to do now? I'm honestly starting to think that should by some fluke I become president, the first thing I'd need to do is go to every major world leader and ask what I can do for them and their country. We've never admitted that we've done anything wrong, and that needs to be done. But we can't just say, "Please, sir, make us your bitch because we've been a bad boy." The question is always, what do we do NOW? Not how can you retaliate against us for yesterday, but how can we work together for tomorrow.
That said, I must agree with Rob. I mean, the Democrats are accusing Bush of having purposefully delayed the capture of Sadaam until it was politically helpful. Can anyone possibly take that seriously? They are desperate, and they need to stop being so obvious about it.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote: Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., told a Seattle radio station Monday the U.S. military could have found Saddam "a long time ago if they wanted." Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said: "Yeah. Oh, yeah."
The Democratic congressman went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing."
We've also got BinLaden and about 1500 tons of WMD's we found in Iraq.
News of one will be released in July 04, just in time for the Democratic National Convention.
The other news will hit some time in October of that year.
First "just in time for the 'Democrat Camps' to open." of Two
[/sarcasm]
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Weevils, it's spelled. Where was that joke from again?
Time immemorial, I expect. But recently revived in Master and Commander.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
That's the one!
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
"See how they run. Like ants, after their anthill has been kicked over, they try to find some shelter, to make some 'good' come out of the damage that has been done to them."
But in the end...IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTE-E-E-ERRR!!! Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:"There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing."
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
It's not coincidental, is it? They have been looking for him for fucking months.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I was under the impression that the Madeleine Albright comment was a joke. Even Fox News is reporting that.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Again, my concerns rise about Rob's mental state. Who's this "they," Roberto? Classic paranoia. Then there's the erratic behavious of late. Posts once, usually some crazy shit that gets laughed right off the Forums, then a sulky silence for about a fortnight or so. Two posts in one day is encouraging, almost chatty - did they up your meds? 8)
Now, I don't think they've been hiding Saddam until it was convenient to 'find' him. It is very convenient of them to find him now - but then it'd have been convenient any time over the last nine months or so.
As for what Saddam may say, well I suspect he'll say anything. Or nothing at all. In his position, knowing he's likely to get a death sentence, I don't see him giving up any WMDs that might exist unless it was in return for lenience; life in prison isn't something he'd get from an Iraqi court, so he'd then have to be tried elsewhere.
So my question is: what is more preferable, Saddam copping a pleas and staying alive, WMDs found, Bush & Blair vindicated? Or should Saddam die even if he takes his secrets to the grave? Nine months and nothing found, with that kind of success rate the chances of anything turning up before the election are slim (note I'm not saying they won't, just that it's not definite).
As for all this stuff that happened way back then being less important than what's happening now, I'll be sure to remind us all about that the next time anyone whines about anything Clinton got away with.
Next, the election. I really don't think Rob or Omeychops need to lie twitching in their beds over this one. You got that whole "This is a crisis, we need a leader, you don't change horses in midrace" crap that everyone seems to be spouting. The only response I have is "Tell that to Gray Davis!" Most of the potential Democrat leaders make Gore look good. Few of them have any skeletons in their cupboard that are any worse than drunk-driving convictions or shakey National Guard attendance records, like that'll matter. But none of them are capable of winning, really, are they?
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Well, they found a rat in a hole in nine months....so they still could find WMD's
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Rob also mentioned Saddam would "instead talk about crap 20 years old." He is referring to the US support of Iraq. He is implying that this is old, so it does not matter.
But...didn't Saddam take power 24 years ago? Purge the Iraqi government 20 years ago? Invade Iran 20 years ago? Poison the Kurds 15 years ago? Invade Kuwait 12 years ago?
Seems like everything that we want to charge Saddam with is old stuff, that, by your reasoning is "crap."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Theres no statute of limitations on mass murder.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
The problem is that administrations aided Iraq because of their pissing contest with Iran which was at the time our #2 enemy behind the USSR. That's the problem with the philosophy of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". We aided what was thought to be the lesser of two evils at the time rather than letting them destroy each other.
Our next real problems are going to be what happens when Pakistan and India decide to make each others countries glow in the dark AND when will North Korea decide to "liberate" South Korea
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Why should those be "our" problems? OK, I can understand wanting to defend one sovereign country from invasion by another, even if they haven't got any oil - but I really doubt that North Korea would seriously try to invade the South. The whole country is fucked, basically - famine-ridden and effectively run for the amusement of a semi-retarded film buff. The poeple in charge are living high on the hog and have got the whole country wrapped round their finger.
And if India and Pakistan want to nuke each other? They're gonna. Nothing anyone tries to do will stop that. Sad but true. And all because: one sick old man who knew he'd barely live to see Independence insisted his people needed their own nation (for which read, he knew he'd never have any power in a united India); both that old man and the man who'd be running India came from Kashmir; and the Brit who drew the boundaries gave it to India because the Nabob/Maharajah was a Hindu (never mind that the population were majority Muslims). I've been to Kashmir - doubt there's anyone else here can say that - and it's beautiful. Is that enough to incinerate yourselves and your neighbours over? They seem to think so.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
No one has answered my question yet: Why isn't Saddam being treated like a POW?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Does he qualify as an enemy combatant? Or is that important?
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Or are we having a double standard here?
Leader or not, he was involved in a war, which is not defined as over as of yet. He led his troops into battle like any other general. He had to have been involved in some sort of military planning. Besides, I hear that Milosevic has all the rights of a POW (not sure, this was discussed in a talk show), why not Saddam?
I can understand the teams of prisoners held at Guantanamo without trial as non-combatants or whatever, but the US declared war here against a sovereign nation, remember?
Or are we having a double standard here? I guess having gazillions of oil gives you certain privileges.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Like I've mentioned before, the US didn't declare war, so they probably think they can get away with anything.
And regarding the earlier link to "WorldNetDaily": I have a difficult time taking seriously a "news" source that has a banner ad selling books by such wonderful people as Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
quote: Why should those be "our" problems?
Unfortunately, radiation doesn't stop at boundary lines drawn on maps. Then there's the whole Hindu vs. Muslim aspect. It wouldn't take long before the whole of southeast asia would give off an everlasting glow. Then where would we get our cheap CD's from?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Not from Japan (our freinds if you'll recall). I'm sure the cance rate in Australlia would skyrocket as well.
The US has always tried to avert the use of nuclear weapons by all countries (not too hypocritical: we let the genie out of te bottle after all- it's partly our responsibility).
As to Saddam being treated as a POW: Uh....yeah, right. He's NOT being tortured. He's NOT being beaten. He's NOT going to be executed (at east not without a trial). He's NOT going withot food, water or a restroom for days at a time. Can he say he treated our POW's the same way?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Today's Stupid Democrat tricks:
quote: Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., told a Seattle radio station Monday the U.S. military could have found Saddam "a long time ago if they wanted." Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said: "Yeah. Oh, yeah."
The Democratic congressman went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing."
It's true, of course.
You now, I bet that all those servicemen that have been shot at and had to risk their lives going house to house looking for Saddam would love to kick the shit out of Jim McDermott for saying anything so stupid. He'll probably blame Bush for 9/11 next. Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Why what the US did in Iraq 20 years ago doesn't matter anymore:
The era of unconditional US support of dictatorships is over.
Why does this seem to upset so many people on the left? They should be pleased that a longstanding and BAD cold war policy has finally been reversed.
"Containment" has finally been seen for the poor strategy that it is - no matter who you're containing, it means you have to foster relations with the dictators around him. In the USSR's case, this meant places in which the USSR was trying to expand to, in Africa, SouthEast Asia, Central and South America. In Iraq's case, it meant Saudi Arabia and the other Mideast Dictatorships.
Europe is different, because it's nations are (more or less) Democracies. The worst we had to ally with to contain the USSR in Europe was France. (Just kidding. Turkey.) We usually didn't have to worry about a UK Prime Minister suddenly deciding to nerve-gas the Northern Irish.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
It doesn't upset me that the era of unconditional support is over. It upsets me that the same people providing that unconditional support twenty years ago without so much as breaking a moral sweat over it are now the ones lecturing the world about righteousness and probity like they are the valiant holy guardians of human rights or something.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: We usually didn't have to worry about a UK Prime Minister suddenly deciding to nerve-gas the Northern Irish.
I'm sure it crossed her mind a few times though!
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Those now near useless nuke in their subs could have a new purpose too....
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
What Cartman said. It was all a lot more recent than, say, Japanese mistreatment of POWs during WW2, yet the Japanese government've barely apologised for that.
Regarding our nukes: it bugs me how little I, as your above-average citizen of the the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, actually know about them. What exactly do we have? Bombs, more than likely, but what about the missile warheads? As far as I know, all our missile deterrent is based on the subs (but are there any others?). Tipped on American missiles we can't fire without US permission. Where are they targetted? Are we talking ground or airburst, or both? Single or multiple warheads?
Now, I'm sure that all those same questions couldn't be fully answered by one of you above-average citizens of the United States. But you probably can find out more about yours than we can about ours. Hell, YOU can probably find out more about ours than we can.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
so many Powers have subs in the arctic at all times, we should just just relocate the UN to a undersea base there.
Think of the Sealab jokes if nothing else!
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Veers: I was under the impression that the Madeleine Albright comment was a joke. Even Fox News is reporting that.
Inaccurate. Fox News is reporting that SHE says it was a joke... which is what you'd expect her to say once her comments were leaked to the press. The other people who were there say she didn't sound like she was joking to any of them.
quote:Albright was in the Fox News studio's green room waiting to appear on an evening program when she made the remark.
"She said, 'Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Usama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?'" said Fox News analyst and Roll Call executive editor Mort Kondracke. "She was not smiling."
Two makeup artists who prep the guests before their appearances also reported that Albright did not ask her question in a joking manner.
But that's okay, from Cynthia McKinney to Howard Dean, paranoia runs rampant in the Democratic party.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So, if she said that Bin Laden was being cloned at Area 51 so terrorism could be spread to the Greys, but didint smile like a horse's ass when she said it, it would of course be true. Because Madelene Allbright would confide in an editor and two makeup artists but not the Democratic Party. Of course.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
That's a different scenario. Democrats are already accusing Bush of purposefully delaying the capture of Sadaam Hussien, absurd as that is, completely seriously. Delaying the capture of bin Laden is the exact same concept, is it not? Cloning someone at Area 51, which everyone knows is only used for flight tests of alien spacecraft, is several orders of magnitude more absurd, and thus not a valid comparison.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
If a former Secretary of State told you something mildly bizarre, without laughing or smiling...
Knowing that the mildly bizarre is occasionally true...
Given McKinney, McDermott, and Dean's comments, among others, why would you NOT believe her?
Or is it just that Democrats have gotten in the habit of consistently saying things that they don't actually believe? I could buy that.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
She said: 'Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Usama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?" That sure doesnt sound like she's in the know at all, but it does sound like she's being a wise ass. She should join Flare.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Now, where did I put that "All Democrats Love Osama Bin Laden" t-shirt we get when we join the party. Ah, here it is, next to the "As A Democrat, I Oppose Mr. Bush So I (Heart) Terrorists" bumper sticker, also a free gift with party membership.
Boy, talk about inane conjecture.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote: "He seems to believe if you are just against everything, that's enough. Against removing Saddam Hussein, against middle-class tax cuts, against knocking down the walls of protection around the world so we can sell more products made in America," Lieberman said. "Dr. Dean has become Dr. No."
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Liberman is an idiot. Sorry, it had to be said.
But that, well, that's some trenchant political commentary you've got there from someone, running to the right to garner votes, trying to spin and gain on the front-runner.
[ December 18, 2003, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Want more good news? Here�s our Quote of the Day: "Lots of people did not want to join the resistance because they did not want to be called Saddam supporters. But now all the people who oppose the Americans will join." That's from Ibrahim Mutlak, director of police patrols for SalahadinProvince, where Mr. Hussein's hometown, Tikrit, is located
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
You're not the only one who thinks Lieberman is an idiot. Lieberman is a Republican in all but name, and most Democrats know this, or they know it and just don't want to admit it. I was wondering when we would get on the subject of the Deomcratic candidates on Flare, and I knew if we did the one candidate you would like would be Lieberman, Fo2. And my suspicions were right!
Lieberman is not going to become the Democratic nominee. That is going to be Howard Dean, which, I must say, seems to be terrifying the Republicans. From what I've seen, the Republicans don't want to go up against him because not only is he the most stringent anti-war candidate, he is the only one that can beat Bush.
A Dean-Clark ticket would have been great, but Clark made the wrong decision of running by himself, and now his hype has worn off.
And since when did not asking a question in a joking manner mean it was not a joke?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I wouldn't put much past Fox News. They wouldn't fabricate her comments because that might backfire, but they sure would report them, saying "Didn't sound like she was making a joke to me." That famous liberal bias, after all. . .
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
That is going to be Howard Dean, which, I must say, seems to be terrifying the Republicans.
Can you show me a Republican terrified of Dean? I haven't seen any. Insofar as I qualify as a Republican, I consider all the Democrat cantidates to be jokes. None are able to unite their party, partially because the Democratic party has no platform to stand on. They're united in opposition to everything Bush does, regardless of what it is, and... that's it. None of the cantidates have any distinguishing features. Of course, the Republicans don't have a platform either, instead simply being united in support of Bush no matter what he does. But at least the things Bush does actually, y'know, are good things for the most part. What I'm saying is, the system is screwed up either way, but if your only objective is to remove Bush from office, you have to ask yourself what you'd rather have his potential replacement doing. Don't look at Dean as your savior. See both sides for all their flaws, and choose the least evil while trying to fix things.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
I think the most accurate nomenclature for "Democrats" is to exchange the fifth letter for an "N".
At least we don't have a compromising system of multiparties like the Israelis do.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
The least evil, in my opinion, is any of the Democratic candidates, except for Lieberman. I have gone to some rallies and seen some debates, and I find that the Democrats have a chance of winning. It will be a hard battle, because Bush's got the Republican party, millions of dollars, two wars, and Saddam Hussein to show for it, but the Democrats have a president who had an affair with an intern, and that's his lasting memory.
I will admit I don't know of any Republicans that are terrified of Dean, but I doubt anyone knows of any Democrats that are terrified that Saddam was found.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
The least evil, in my opinion, is any of the Democratic candidates, except for Lieberman.
This is exactly what I meant. You don't care who wins, because all you want is Bush gone. You don't care about what his replacement does, so long as Bush is out of office. Can you really tell me WHY you feel like that? What's your major beef with Bush?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I do not like how he scourned the world and the United Nations, how he told the world the reason we were invading Iraq was to disarm it of their massive WMD stock, and how the country we were supposed to be liberating has descended into a nation of chaos, and the people who are causing the chaos were encouraged to "bring it on." And I don't particularly like those tax cuts (which some Dem candidates are also proposing, I know).
I'm not saying Bush is the anti-Christ or some incarnation of evil, I just don't think he is a good president. The number one reason is Iraq: because of the war, the rest of the world is deeply angered at us. And I'd rather have a president who doesn't make the rest of the world cringe when "America" is mentioned.
I DO want Bush replaced, because of the things I mentioned. I mean, what did YOU feel like when Bob Dole lost to Clinton? Or when Clinton finally left office?
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
No one still hasn't directly answered my question on why Saddam is not being treated as a POW. Someone says the US didn't declare war against Iraq. I'd like to see statements supporting this. And if this is true, then my opinion of Bush has sunk to an all time low, which can only get lower.
So invade Canada. You don't need a declaration to do so, if this is true.....
And Veers, it's not just people cringing, it's more of people getting really pissed off.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I do not like how he scourned the world and the United Nations, how he told the world the reason we were invading Iraq was to disarm it of their massive WMD stock
He told the world it was _A_ reason. Which it was. It was a reason the world agreed with, seeing as there was a (unanimous?) UN resolution on the matter. The only disagreement was on how long to wait. There I will grant you that another course could conceivably have been better. But it might not have been. How likely was it that the UN would EVER have enforced that resolution? Or that more time for Sadaam would have mattered at all? It was a judgement call. He chose to move, probably because not going at all would be dumb, and waiting would be pointless. But that's just me. So what would you have preferred he do?
how the country we were supposed to be liberating has descended into a nation of chaos
I believe you'll find that that's an exaggeration. Yes, things are unruly, significantly more than they were, but there is an end in sight. Again, what would you have Bush do differently?
the people who are causing the chaos were encouraged to "bring it on."
You know that wasn't intended as encouragement, nor will it be taken as such. It was intended to convey a lack of fear, which it did. What harm do you think it did?
And I don't particularly like those tax cuts
Because of the deficit, I assume?
I DO want Bush replaced, because of the things I mentioned. I mean, what did YOU feel like when Bob Dole lost to Clinton? Or when Clinton finally left office?
That's a different scenario. I'm trying to find out why you think Bush is a bad President. It has nothing to do with Clinton.
Someone says the US didn't declare war against Iraq. I'd like to see statements supporting this.
The US hasn't "declared war" against anyone for sixty years. What do we call them now, "resolutions of force"? Makes things a little more vague, gives us wiggle room. Of course, even under that, Bush has long since declared an end to major combat operations, so the "war" as such is over.
Of course, these are just possibilities. You'd have to ask Bush himself if you want his explination.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Back to the Albright thing, "Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Usama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?" isn't much of a quote, when there's not context. To me, it sounds rhetorical, and perhaps even sarcastic. If she said "Is the pope Catholic?", would they accuse her of not knowing who the pope is? We need to know the context of the quote to determine whether there's any chance she meant it.
"How likely was it that the UN would EVER have enforced that resolution?"
Probably more likely than that they would ever enforce any of the resolutions against Israel.
"The least evil, in my opinion, is any of the Democratic candidates, except for Lieberman."
Oh, I wouldn't go that far. Al Sharpton and Dick Gephardt both suck pretty much, too.
"And I don't particularly like those tax cuts" "Because of the deficit, I assume?"
That, and the fact that they're aimed at rich people. Reaganomics didn't work when Reagan tried it. I don't see what makes anyone believe it will now.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
How did Reaganomics not work? Tax revenues increased dramatically, and the number of "poor" (for some arbitrary definition of poor) in the country dropped dramatically due to massive economic growth, exactly like we're seeing now. Am I forgetting something?
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Over here, they redefined the threshold of the definition of poor, they made it lower to give it the appearance that their numbers were dropping.
If there was any investment during Ontario's boom, it usually resulted in low paying jobs, not like the tide that rises all boats.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I think that's the first time I've ever heard the Reagan/Bush years described as a time of "massive economic growth".
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Sure, of negative growth. Or of imaginary growth, depending on the angle. That's a math joke, by the way. LAUGH!
"At least we don't have a compromising system of multiparties like the Israelis do."
Like most Western nations do, where things actually GET DONE rather than bog down in partisan bickering 24/7?
[ December 19, 2003, 05:09 AM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Maybe if Bush hadn't stressed the WMD claim OVER AND OVER AGAIN until it's imbedded in our conciousness, and then when we went in, it's suddenly about liberation and the WMDS don't matter. What would I have had him do differently? I don't know, maybe stressed Saddam's reign of terror before the war instead of WMDs.
In regards to it being an exaggeration that Iraq is in chaos, it seems to be the opinion of mostly Republicans that things are going well. I wouldn't call "going well" or "unruly" the dozens of suicide bombings in Iraq, the guerilla attacks, the ambushes, the assassinations, the missile attacks on airplanes, the deaths of more than 450 Americans. That's not "unruly;" at the very least, it's "very dangerous." Good things are happening, they are just outnumbered bby the negative.
As for the Bill Clinton thing, Omega, I want to know because you're a Republican. Usually the member of the other party wants the current president out. Was it or was it not the same with you?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
1980s tax cuts and deregulation, combined with Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker's inflation-curbing money controls, unleashed American enterprise and boosted national production 30% with a 20% rise in per capita income.
Between 1982 and 1989 the economy grew at an average annual rate of 4.2 percent.
If you look at the 1980's, families increased their income by 11 percent, or $4,100. That was the increase in median family income during the 1980's.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Veers: Maybe if Bush hadn't stressed the WMD claim OVER AND OVER AGAIN until it's imbedded in our conciousness, and then when we went in, it's suddenly about liberation and the WMDS don't matter. What would I have had him do differently? I don't know, maybe stressed Saddam's reign of terror before the war instead of WMDs.
Actually, the liberation angle was stressed "OVER AND OVER AGAIN" as well. Weren't you paying attention to the actual speeches? Or were you just hearing the endless media soundbites (because "liberating the Iraqi people" doesn't sell papers and commercial spotslike "imminent threat of annihilation" does?)
Remember, just because the media (liberal or otherwise) pounds something into your skull doesn't make it accurate.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
If I remember correctly, there was four or five terrorist bombings that occured overseas during the Clinton administration. After each, he proceeded to expound upon how the U.S. would hunt down those responsible and bring them to justice. That never occured. After 9-11 Bush said that we would hunt down those responsible and the majority favored that action. Now that we are doing that, and its taking more than 15 minutes and a push of a button or two, the ADD American people are crying about it.
As for the UN.... it is a WORTHLESS organization. People talk about how the US congress is riddled with politics and partisanship. UN action is like putting an MS patient in the ring with Mike Tyson. You know what REAL effect is going to be achieved before it even begins. Plus, I don't trust my future to be "guided" or decided by a consortium of cultures and nations that have no stake in my betterment and plenty of philosophical/political/religious reasons to wish my demise. The UN, rather than pulling other cultures up, would rather LOWER western cultures to create an "Even Playing Field".
Working to the lowest common denominator is defeatest. We should be seeking the Greatest Common Multiple.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Actually, the liberation angle was stressed "OVER AND OVER AGAIN" as well.
Yeah, once we couldn't find any WMD.
Bush's little vendetta suddenly became about a bunch of different things, none of which threatened the national security of the United States.
Oh, but Jay, the Iraqi people were oppressed and we needed to help them.
As a liberal, I agree with that. But I'd also point out that we don�t have a foreign policy of humanitarian intervention, if we did, we wouldn�t stop at Iraq. Heck, Iraq might not have even been on the top of the list...North Korea anyone?? Rather we have a foreign policy of self interest, economic and otherwise.
And despite the argument offered by the second article David posted, motivations matter. There is no way Bush could have rallied support for his war by saying it was to free the oppressed Iraqi people, so he flat out fabricated a story about Saddam�s WMD being aimed out our proverbial hearts, making Saddam a threat to our self interest.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yes, it's very sad when we cant rally any support to free a country victimized by it's leader but that we'll leap to war if there's a chance in hell they're a threat to us personally.
Because hey, it's not our problem untill they have WMD, right?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I think that's the first time I've ever heard the Reagan/Bush years described as a time of "massive economic growth".
Admittedly, it might not have been the tax cuts directly, human endeavours are difficult to trace back to a single ultimate cause. Still, do you have a better explanation for the eighties economy?
Also, I'd like to address your statement about the tax cuts being directed at the rich. Where else would you have them be directed? The rich pay nearly all the taxes in this country. You can't give the poor tax cuts because they're not paying taxes to begin with. Further, why would it be bad to take less income from the rich? What do they do with their money that you find so objectionable?
Rob: Actually, the liberation angle was stressed "OVER AND OVER AGAIN" as well.
Jay: Yeah, once we couldn't find any WMD. Then Bush's little vendetta became about a bunch of different things, none of which threatened the national security of the United States.
You know, we keep going back and forth on this one. Rob says that Bush always had many reasons for invading Iraq, Jay says those only came up after WMDs weren't found, Rob says nuh-uh, Jay says yuh-huh, repeat ad nauseum. Does anyone actually know where we can find transscripts of the Bush administration's statements on the issue from before we invaded? 'Cause that's the only way further discussion on the point can serve any purpose.
I'd also point out that we don�t have a foreign policy of humanitarian intervention, if we did, we wouldn�t stop at Iraq.
Who says we don't under this administration, and who says we've stopped?
Heck, Iraq might not have even been on the top of the list...North Korea anyone??
The situation in North Korea is hardly analogous. First, there's still some chance of a diplomatic solution. Second, they have nukes, and missiles that can hit densely populated cities. Shoot, even without the nukes the missiles are bad enough. Even if diplomacy fails, it'd be in everyone's best interest to put that war off as long as possible, because the longer we wait the closer we are to having working theatre missile defense. Third, North Korea is an isolated country. Replacing its government will keep it from attacking its neighbors, and help its people, just like Iraq. Iraq becoming a stable democracy will do all those things, but it will also become an example to all the countries around it that there's a better way to do things. Further, once the job's done and we pull out, it will likely help prove our good intentions to many more in the middle east. Basically, North Korea is isolated, what happens there doesn't change anything elsewhere. Iraq can change its whole region.
he flat out fabricated a story about Saddam�s WMD being aimed out our proverbial hearts
At least point out that this is your opinion. You have no evidence that Bush lied. We did in fact have very good intelligence stating that Iraq had biological and chemical weapons.
Yes, it's very sad when we cant rally any support to free a country victimized by it's leader but that we'll leap to war if there's a chance in hell they're a threat to us personally.
Amen to that. I hate war, war sucks. But sometimes it's better than the alternative. What's the use of having the most powerful military and economy anyone's ever seen if you don't do some good with it all?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
The thing is: no matter how much we debate, the conservatives will never convince the liberals that the war was just, and the liberals will never convince the conservatives that the war was right all along.
BTW, didn't the first acknowledgement that the war started go like this (from Ari Fleischer): "the first stages of the disarmament of Iraq have begun." Why not say "liberation?" Because it wouldn't play well with the world?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"The rich pay nearly all the taxes in this country."
Do they? The rich comprise only 1% of the population, yet control 45% of all wealth in the US. Numbers, please.
In any case, taxes SHOULD be distributed such that the rich pay more than the poor.
"You can't give the poor tax cuts because they're not paying taxes to begin with. Further, why would it be bad to take less income from the rich? What do they do with their money that you find so objectionable?"
Something tells me you're not going to embrace the POV of a socialist or of anyone leaning less to the right than you do, so I'll just save both of us the time and trouble and skip this point.
"Who says we don't under this administration, and who says we've stopped?"
The list of candidates for humanitarian intervention hasn't been shortened much since Bush took office:
Iran Chile North Korea Guatemala Laos Liberia Cambodia Angola El Salvador Libya Bolivia Colombia Venezuela Zimbabwe
Combating terrorism != a foreign policy of humanitarian intervention. If Bush is really so anxious to clean up after himself and showcase his devotion to the welfare of others, he's still got his work cut out for him. That is, assuming he even wins a second term.
Besides, how many more wars do you think your "powerful" economy can sustain, anyway?
"First, there's still some chance of a diplomatic solution. Second, they have nukes, and missiles that can hit densely populated cities. Shoot, even without the nukes the missiles are bad enough. Even if diplomacy fails, it'd be in everyone's best interest to put that war off as long as possible, because the longer we wait the closer we are to having working theatre missile defense. Third, North Korea is an isolated country. Replacing its government will keep it from attacking its neighbors, and help its people, just like Iraq. Iraq becoming a stable democracy will do all those things, but it will also become an example to all the countries around it that there's a better way to do things. Further, once the job's done and we pull out, it will likely help prove our good intentions to many more in the middle east. Basically, North Korea is isolated, what happens there doesn't change anything elsewhere. Iraq can change its whole region."
1) "Some" as in "less than there was for Saddam & Co to leave Iraq before Bush's ultimatum expired". 2) Saddam allegedly had missiles aimed at every city in Israel, but that didn't stop you from mopping HIS floor. 3) Yes, aka WMDs. You know, it's ironic. Iraq didn't have nukes, but somehow was a grave threat to the US. North Korea actually HAS them, but isn't. Also, the longer you wait, the more innocent victims, which was your argument for invading Iraq. Why doesn't it apply here? 4) So because the country is isolated and not a great demonstrator for The American Way�, its people can rot away indefinitely? 5) By the way, North Korea borders on China. If there is ONE region in the world where proving your intentions might be beneficial, it's THAT one.
"...and the liberals will never convince the conservatives that the war was right all along."
You mean wrong. Right? B)
[ December 19, 2003, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Also, I'd like to address your statement about the tax cuts being directed at the rich. Where else would you have them be directed?"
Who said we needed tax cuts in the first place?
"The rich pay nearly all the taxes in this country. You can't give the poor tax cuts because they're not paying taxes to begin with."
Which is how it should be. Tax money has to come from somewhere. Shouldn't it come from the people who have money, rather than those who don't?
"Further, why would it be bad to take less income from the rich?"
Because, if you take less money from the rich, there are only two things that can happen. Either the governemt will have less money, or they'll have to take more money from the poor. And neither of those situations is good.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Does anyone actually know where we can find transscripts of the Bush administration's statements on the issue from before we invaded? 'Cause that's the only way further discussion on the point can serve any purpose.
I can tell you pretty much from memory Mr. Bush's stated reasons for invasion were because Hussein was an immediate threat to the National Security of the United States...not for any humanitarian reason.
quote:Who says we don't under this administration, and who says we've stopped?
Um, I do. And I did. Any such humanitarian intervention is Iraq is a side-affect of the real Get Saddam� policy. In fact, a more cynical person than I might imagine something like the following:
Some middling staff member noticed at a post- invasion meeting a great worried meeting when there were no WMD to be found and the administration was wondering what to say to the public about it.
"What do we do now?" Mr. Bush might have asked.
"Give me time," Mr. Cheney might have answered.
"There not there, Dick. Richard and Wolfie said they would be there. Now what are the people going to say. I want my second term!" Mr Bush might have said rubbing his hands together.
"Calm down Mr. President. We�ll figure it out," Mr. Cheney might have said.
"Hey, we liberated all those people," the staff member might have interjected.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Chenney might have looked at each other and grinned.
"Yes we did," they might have said together. "Ari, get that out right away. And tell Haliburton, we�ll have another contract for them real soon."
Again, that's clearly someone more cynical than I am.
quote:The situation in North Korea is hardly analogous.
The analogy holds in that the people of North Korea are under the thumb of a brutal dictator, lack democracy, and suffer terrible living conditions. All of which, it now appears after the fact, are reasons why we went into Iraq.
quote:First, there's still some chance of a diplomatic solution.
Which was also the case for the situation in Iraq before Mr. Bush said "Fuck Saddam, were taking him out."
quote:Second, they have nukes, and missiles that can hit densely populated cities.
I see, we only free the people in countries where it is easy? And here I'll point out that I'm not necessarily advocating this course, but by extension, we invade to free the oppressed people of Iraq, well, why not then North Korea?
quote:Third, North Korea is an isolated country. Replacing its government will keep it from attacking its neighbors, and help its people, just like Iraq.
I'll just assume that was supposed to mean something.
quote:You have no evidence that Bush lied.
It's simple really, where are the WMD which were supposed to have been deployed in 45 minutes, you remember, the ones that were an immediate threat?
Why all changing justifications for the war?
We�ve attacked Iraq and yet the masterminds behind 9/11 attacks remain at large. It�s appaling that Mr. Bush allowed the �bber-hawks to take over foreign policy and push through their pet Let�s-Attack-Iraq policy on a American public willing to strike just about any blow after 9/11.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Cartman: Yes, I meant "wrong," I just made a mistake. Thanks for seeing it.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Something tells me you're not going to embrace the POV of a socialist
Since socialism tends to suck for all involved, no I'm not.
The rich comprise only 1% of the population, yet control 45% of all wealth in the US. Numbers, please.
These numbers are from the IRS as of 2001. The top 1% of wage-earners earn 17.5% of the wages earned in this country, and pay 33.9% of the income taxes. The botton 50% earn 13.8% of the wages, and pay slightly less than 4% of the taxes.
The list of candidates for humanitarian intervention hasn't been shortened much since Bush took office:
It's been shortened by as much as possible with the time, resources, and political capital available. What would you have done differently?
1) "Some" as in "less than there was for Saddam & Co to leave Iraq before Bush's ultimatum expired".
There we disagree. Kim is still talking. Sadaam wasn't.
2) Saddam allegedly had missiles aimed at every city in Israel, but that didn't stop you from mopping HIS floor.
Someone said this?
3) Yes, aka WMDs. You know, it's ironic. Iraq didn't have nukes, but somehow was a grave threat to the US. North Korea actually HAS them, but isn't. Also, the longer you wait, the more innocent victims, which was your argument for invading Iraq. Why doesn't it apply here?
Iraq having biochem weapons was a threat because they could be passed to terrorist organizations. Sadaam may not have had connections with bin Laden and friends, but he did have at least some terrorist connections. North Korea's nukes can't be moved quite so easily, making the threat qualitatively different. They're a threat to everyone in missile range, a threat we're addressing through both technology and diplomacy. Yes, the longer we wait the more innocent victims there are likely to be in N. Korea, but if we invade now we'll probably lose Seoul. Pick the lesser evil.
4) So because the country is isolated and not a great demonstrator for The American Way�, its people can rot away indefinitely?
Ahh, the joys of red herrings. For those keeping score, what I actually said was more along these lines: We can not solve all problems at once. Therefore we solve the problem that will have the greater positive effect first. For example, if we'd invaded North Korea, do you think Lybia would now be agreeing to let UN inspectors in? North Korea will have to wait, regrettable as it may be, but what would you do differently?
5) By the way, North Korea borders on China. If there is ONE region in the world where proving your intentions might be beneficial, it's THAT one.
Compared to the middle east? Riiiiiiiight...
Who said we needed tax cuts in the first place?
The economy was flagging. Tax cuts have historically proven beneficial to the economy. Thus we needed tax cuts.
Tax money has to come from somewhere. Shouldn't it come from the people who have money, rather than those who don't?
I tend to agree, at least to some degree. However, this also means that if you're going to give a tax cut, you must give it to the wealthy, since they're the only ones paying taxes. See above.
Because, if you take less money from the rich, there are only two things that can happen. Either the governemt will have less money, or they'll have to take more money from the poor.
"lower tax rates = more robust economy = more federal revenue"
Obviously there are limits to the process, but it's hardly a simple "higher taxes = more revenue" system like you propose.
I can tell you pretty much from memory Mr. Bush's stated reasons for invasion were because Hussein was an immediate threat to the National Security of the United States...not for any humanitarian reason.
And Rob's memory disagrees. Find me every Bush administration statement on the issue (have you seriously heard and read them all?), or I can't take either position seriously, and will continue giving Bush the benefit of the doubt for lack of a reason not to.
The analogy holds in that the people of North Korea are under the thumb of a brutal dictator, lack democracy, and suffer terrible living conditions.
Yes, but the analogy does NOT hold in several variables which I've already pointed out.
Which was also the case for the situation in Iraq before Mr. Bush said "Fuck Saddam, were taking him out."
Sadaam was flatly refusing all demands that anyone was making. You're a more hopeful person than I.
we only free the people in countries where it is easy?
Try "not practically guarenteed to kill several million locals".
I'll just assume that was supposed to mean something.
You wouldn't have to assume if you'd read my post. Yes, perhaps it might have been phrased slightly clearer, but the statement was still understandable, and made sense in the context of the rest of the paragraph you chopped it out of.
where are the WMD which were supposed to have been deployed in 45 minutes, you remember, the ones that were an immediate threat?
A very good question, seeing as our intelligence sources said they'd be there. One of those sources has since claimed that the Iraqi army simply didn't want to fight, and thus did not use the weapons they were provided. This source may have lied at one time or another, but that's bad intelligence, not Bush lying.
Why all changing justifications for the war?
Which you have not proven. In fact, since I seriously doubt you've been exposed to even a small fraction of the Bush administration's pre-war statement's on the issue, I'm not sure how you can personally justify being so sure of it.
So again, why do you say Bush lied?
\We�ve attacked Iraq and yet the masterminds behind 9/11 attacks remain at large.
And are being persued by large numbers of troops. It's not as if putting off the invasion of Iraq for a few years would have captured Osama bin Laden faster, y'know.
[ December 19, 2003, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Omega ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:And are being persued by large numbers of troops. It's not as if putting off the invasion of Iraq for a few years would have captured Osama bin Laden faster, y'know.
Yeah, we've got him surrounded.
quote:There are 12 times as many American troops in Iraq as there are in the mountainous border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan where Mr. bin Laden is believed to be hiding.
Dead or alive, eh?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
That does not address the point of whether those same troops would have been in Afganistan had we not invaded Iraq.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
One might figure, with what is it, 4 divisions out of action resting and refiting, that yes, there are troops in Iraq that might be in Afghanistan.
Any other alledged points you want to bring up?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
*shrug*
Might be, might not be. Anyone know if any troops were actually transferred out of Afganistan and into Iraq directly?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)