We caught Saddam!

[Merryprankster]

dead end argument guys.

1:1 on the no one knows nothing about any of it.

closing



Here. Since Kung Lek decided to close the last thread on one of the biggest news items this year, I figured we could start over.

I'm sure we'll get shut down soon--after all, as we all know, this is a CMA FORUM, dedicated to CMA! Except when it's not. Which is frequently.

As usual, I anticipate a one-two week effort from our intrepid moderator(s) wherein they will angrily enforce the rules, crack down on whatever thread flavor they decide they don't like that month, then act as though there weren't actually any forum rules at all (again) for around 8 weeks. Then when we ask for an off-topic forum so we can actually interact like (virtual) normal human beings, and not MA zombies, we'll be told to zark off.

Ok. Now that that's over:

Some thoughts:

It's true that WMD and CBRN are not the same thing, but when laypersons talk about WMD they usually mean CBRN. It's just a distinction in terminology. So--whatever. Forgive them their terminology ignorance and discuss the issue.

Did Saddam have any active CBRN component programs--I'd say that based on open source reporting it looks sketchy. Now, a better question is--does SADDAM know if he had CBRN weapons! It's entirely possible he doesn't. A man who likes to kill people who bring him bad news doesn't exactly inspire subordinates to bring forth data he doesn't want to hear.

I don't believe Saddam, who has been on the lam for 8 months, is actually going to have much information we don't already have about Iraq. Unless he knows specifically where things are hidden. If they are hidden.

Wag the dog? Please. It would be naivete of the purest sort to believe the adminstration won't milk this success for all it's worth, but that level of silliness is just, well, silly. Mansion? Body guards? No way. No way at all. Tell us why this is a possibility.

That said, it is an undeniable FACT that Saddam had CB weapons. Whether he maintained a program after 1991 remains to be seen.

[Liokault]

The real question here is does he wish he had let the inspectors do there thing in the first place lol.

Also have the other autocrats in the middle east (who are closer friends to the USA) watching in fear? I hope so, for as I am against the way that this war took place and its motives, I feel that in the long run it will be a good thing for the majority.


I do question your statment MP that the USA did not put saddam in place! I thought it was well known and generally acknowlaged that the CIA helped get his party into power then keep him there.

[yenhoi]

That said, it is an undeniable FACT that Saddam had CB weapons. Whether he maintained a program after 1991 remains to be seen.

So what? Does any of it matter now?

:confused:

[Merryprankster]

The Ba'ath party began as a socialist, pan-arab party, and Saddam joined it in the 50's.

There are some reports the CIA may have helped the Ba'ath party boys get some power in the 60's but:

1. They had little to do with trying to bring Saddam to power.

2. They were certainly not an expression of "Saddam's our man" and instead were "We don't like the current regime."

In any event true support to Saddam, in earnest, didn't begin until the Shah was deposed. I have no problems admitting that the CIA and the U.S. gov in general probably helped Saddam a great deal, but I hesitate to push this sort of heavy involvement/we put him in power from the word go theory when I think it's clear that history offers another, and IMO better, take on the issue.

We didn't put his regime in power. He was quite adept at party politics and thuggery long before we began offering support (and was certainly in power before we offered any REAL support). It's not as though the CIA made him his puppet and propelled him to power.

Edited for factual errors :D

[Merryprankster]

So what? Does any of it matter now?

I don't know. I don't think you do either. If that's ALL he ever had then we're going to look a bit like idiots.

Except that the world has already forgotten why we went in.

No offense, but there's no outrage about that any more--just a little from some angry leftists.

No, people worldwide are more concerned now with what the **** place is going to look like when we leave, than why we went it.

That's Geopolitics for ya.

[Volcano Admim]

yeh yeh
but you aint got me, suckas :p

you can watch a kenjustsu clip while you meditate on that
http://niten.com.br/videos/videos/6o_kyu.wmv

http://niten.com.br/videos/index.php

[MC Taiji Hips]

Here's a good question: How long will CNN have 24 hour coverage of Saddam Hussein Captured? I say a week or two. Maybe up to a year considering this is our biggest Military victory since WWII.

[old jong]

Hey!...We are stuck with a dictator right here in Quebec!....His name is Jean Charest,prime minister of the province.He is passing all kinds of crasy laws and won't listen to anybody.
I was wondering if Bush could send a couple or,maybe only one carrier in the Saint-Lauwrence river up here to take care of his regime?...(Now the he got what he wanted in Irak) ;)

[Fen]

Well, we have an off topic forum at Fu-Ragz, and you're more then welcome to go over there and post whatever you'd like. In the off topic forum, there's no mods (unless it's due to porn, or something of the like) and it's used all the time. Why do you think Wen started the OT forum??? If you're interested go to Fu-Ragz (http://www.team-fu.com) and check it out. Don't forget to sign up to use it! Now, you can have the best of both worlds, Kung Fu Magazine, and your OT forum!!

Ok, now I'm done advertising!

On Saddam-
It's going to be interesting to see how they handle it. I'm just concerned that because of the election and everything, its going to be made a LOT bigger than what it really is. Can we as a country even prosecute him on war crimes??

[yenhoi]

I don't know. I don't think you do either. If that's ALL he ever had then we're going to look a bit like idiots.

Yeah but.... its not like we didnt warn him?

Wont this help make other people 'round there do what we say when we say it?

:confused:

[Souljah]

to MP and Lio's comments

I didnt think that Saddam was helped by the US in being brought to power, I thought the main American support came when they wanted the Ayatola's removed from power in Iran, at which time they armed Saddam to the teeth. Biologically and Otherwise

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Merryprankster


...

Except that the world has already forgotten why we went in.

No offense, but there's no outrage about that any more--just a little from some angry leftists.

No, people worldwide are more concerned now with what the **** place is going to look like when we leave, than why we went it.

That's Geopolitics for ya.

I don't agree with you on this. I think a lot of people around the world remember the reasons given for going in and are watching very closely to see if those reasons were justified. I know a lot of people in Australia are watching very closely because the political survival of our illustrious leader depends on whether the populace felt they were lied to in justifying the war. I am sure there is a similar situation in Britain too.

[CaptinPickAxe]

Saddam is a "wiseass"

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by joedoe
I think a lot of people around the world remember the reasons given for going in...

Remember implies they knew in the first place, doesn't it?

[Liokault]

I don't agree with you on this. I think a lot of people around the world remember the reasons given for going in

I do not belive that anyone has forgoten that this is/was about stabalising oil supply to the west.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Christopher M


Remember implies they knew in the first place, doesn't it?

Read what I said very carefully - I said the reasons given. I am talking about the reasons that Bush, Blair and Howard gave to their nations for going to war in Iraq.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Liokault
I do not belive that anyone has forgoten that this is/was about stabalising oil supply to the west.

Brilliant proof of my point. Thanks.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by joedoe
I said the reasons given.

Do you take this to be about WMD?

[Toby]

Certainly was in Oz. I was reading slashdot (for all you geeks out there) and some recent comments revealed this:

http://www.counterpunch.org/wmd05292003.html

Now I haven't read anything about the host site, but I imagine it probably contains the polar opposite of your opinions Christopher M. However, the quotes interested me. Obviously out of context, etc, but quotes like these were a (publicly presented) clear motivation not only in Oz, but (I would have thought) in the UK and the US as well. In fact, in Oz, it was the prime motivation. A pre-emptive strike to eliminate potential future attacks by Iraq using WMD. Comments, Christopher M? I would be interested in the veracity of the quotes - accurate, or not?

[Okinawan_Lohan]

Whatever happened to Afghanistan and Osama?

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Christopher M


Do you take this to be about WMD?

Are you being obtuse or am I really not expressing myself clearly?

To recap:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Merryprankster


...

Except that the world has already forgotten why we went in.

No offense, but there's no outrage about that any more--just a little from some angry leftists.

No, people worldwide are more concerned now with what the **** place is going to look like when we leave, than why we went it.

That's Geopolitics for ya.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I replied with:

I don't agree with you on this. I think a lot of people around the world remember the reasons given for going in and are watching very closely to see if those reasons were justified. I know a lot of people in Australia are watching very closely because the political survival of our illustrious leader depends on whether the populace felt they were lied to in justifying the war. I am sure there is a similar situation in Britain too.

To clarify my previous post:

Bush, Blair and Howard all told their nations (and the UN) that the prime reason for going to war in Iraq was a pre-emptive action to disarm Iraq of WMD. I remember it very clearly, as do many of my compatriots. I am sure many US and British citizens also remember it. So far, there has been no evidence of these WMD that we went to war over. Another of the main reasons used was that this was part of the war against terror. What evidence is there, other than the resistance movement, that Iraq was harbouring terrorists?

An interesting point is that I recall before the coalition went to war, Hans Blix pleaded for more time to inspect Iraq for WMD. In fact, he said that it could take months, even years to complete their task. They were told that time had run out and war began. Now that the war has been waged and people are asking where the WMD are, we are being told that it could take months, even years to find them. Sound familiar?

I don't really want to get into an argument over this as I know that you and I have differing views on this. I can accept that the deposing of a dictator may have been reason enough to go to war. I just have an issue with being lied to on an issue that concerns war.

[Christopher M]

Toby - (and I think this covers joedoe's post as well)

Here's transcripts of Bush's speeches specifically on that topic. You can observe for yourself that WMD did not feature at all as an issue until relatively recently, and never were depicted as the contingent issue for war.

I have no doubt whatsoever that you were told it was all about WMD, and always had been. I just think we should look more closely at who it is that's been telling us that; and how accurate it is.

...the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. In one place, we find exactly the kind of aggressive threat the UN was born to confront. The Unites States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. If we meet out responsabilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity.
-September 12, 2002.

I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is nor surrounding your country - your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.
-January 28, 2003.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power... Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict...
-March 17, 2003.

American and coalition forces are in early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger... We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
-March 19, 2003

[joedoe]

I seem to recall the whole argument in the UN (which is where it all started really) was surrounding the disarmament of Iraq. There was no attempt to pass any resolution regarding the liberation of the Iraqi people. It was all about ensuring that Iraq did not have WMD.

[Christopher M]

That first quote (Sept 12, 2002) was from his address to the UN. You can see for yourself which (liberation or WMD) he is talking about.

[Toby]

Originally posted by Christopher M ...the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. In one place, we find exactly the kind of aggressive threat the UN was born to confront. The Unites States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. If we meet out responsabilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity.
-September 12, 2002.

I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is nor surrounding your country - your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.
-January 28, 2003.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power... Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict...
-March 17, 2003.

American and coalition forces are in early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger... We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
-March 19, 2003 Did some highlighting of my own. What's he talking about there?

Also,

Here's transcripts of Bush's speeches specifically on that topic. You can observe for yourself that WMD did not feature at all as an issue until relatively recently, and never were depicted as the contingent issue for war.

What's relatively recently? It was (as Joedoe and I've both mentioned) Oz's (and elsewhere?) prime motivation for entering the war. Obviously I'm not exposed to UK and US mass media apart from garbage like CNN which I choose not to watch, so I don't know what reasons were given there. However, I highly doubt we (following the US into war) would have a completely different reason to the main antagonist (the US).

<edited for brevity/>

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Toby
Did some highlighting of my own. What's he talking about there?

In both bits you highlighted, he's talking about the liberation of Iraq.


What's relatively recently?

It seemed to increase in priority from one of many issues into a prominent issue around Febuary/March. The quotes provided highlight this.


It was Oz's prime motivation for entering the war.

Could have been; to be frank: I didn't follow Howard's speeches at all. To continue with the frankness trend: I'm also suspicious of people's ability in general to distinguish between what their media sources are telling them and what is actually going on. We've already seen this here with the incorrect (but highly publicized) assertion that there's some doubt Iraq had chemical weapons at all, and/or after 1991.

[joedoe]

I am bowing out of this argument. Thank you gentlemen for your time :)

[Christopher M]

Take care.

[Toby]

Sorry, I highlighted some more when I deleted the beginning bit. I'll address some of the bits I highlighted.

the peace of the world must never again be destroyed
aggressive threat
the face of danger
overcome this danger
to defend the world from grave danger
except to remove a threat

All these quotes imply that Iraq is a threat to the rest of the world. IMO, that implies that Dubya is saying Iraq potentially had WMD of one form or another, although media always implied that WMD consist of CB weapons (because they are more frightening to the general populace) to garner support for the war - again, MHO. Surely you can't say that any of those quotes are about the liberation of the Iraqi people? How does their oppression threaten to destroy world peace? What aggressive threat is posed by their oppression? What does their liberation have to do with the face of danger? How does their oppression threaten the world with grave danger? etc.


a great strategic goal

This is what a lot of cynics (me often included) would see as the primary reason for the war. A lot of people (me often included) view Dubya as a way bigger threat to world peace, with his propensity to start wars. I tell you, I was very scared when North Korea started making open threats. I'm glad Dubya didn't make anything of it, because there was a country that could've taken it to a few of us it they so chose. Iraq and Afghanistan were local issues. North Korea could've affected the world.

<edited to fix broken bold links/>
<edited to fix spelling error/>

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Toby
All these quotes imply that Iraq is a threat to the rest of the world. IMO, that implies that Dubya is saying Iraq potentially had WMD of one form or another

Recall that the point I was addressing was whether or not the WMD issue was the contingent factor, the reason, the conclusion, or otherwise the central point of his position. It's not clear to me that you're discussing that here.


How does there oppression threaten to destroy world peace?

If the underlying premise to this question is along the lines of "what threat to peace can Iraq pose other than through international deployment of WMD?" then I'll direct you to the invasion of Kuwait, the violent in Kurdistan, etc.


This is what a lot of cynics (me often included) would see as the primary reason for the war.

I'm unsure what you're referring to with "this" here, sorry.


A lot of people (me often included) view Dubya as a way bigger threat to world peace

Well, I would disagree; and I'll continue to disagree until Dubya's death count tops Saddam's. Is there some, perhaps more complicated measure behind your judgement? Or are you under the impression that it already has?

[Toby]

In the bits I highlighted in my last post, yeah, I believe that his quotes reflect that he's presenting Iraq as a threat to the rest of the world. He doesn't specifically mention WMD, but he's saying Iraq's a threat that must be removed. So I'm trying to discuss that, sorry if I'm not eloquent enough :p

In response to your 2nd bit, I thought that that was dealt with in '91? I wasn't aware that Iraq was threatening to invade anywhere anymore. Was that ever mentioned? Seems to me, they were (internationally speaking) minding their business.

The reason I'm referring to is that overthrowing Saddam presented a great strategic goal to Dubya and the US. i.e. the whole oil issue.

I know you'll disagree with the last part. I view him as a bigger potential threat. Doesn't threat imply a future event, not e.g. the current death toll? In any case, I view him as a bigger potential threat because I think he's insane. I have at times thought (seriously) he could spell the end of human life on this planet, given an opponent with the ability and equal level of madness to challenge him. Glad not everyone has nukes.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Toby
In the bits I highlighted in my last post, yeah, I believe that his quotes reflect that he's presenting Iraq as a threat to the rest of the world. He doesn't specifically mention WMD, but he's saying Iraq's a threat that must be removed.

Sure, I don't have any problem with that interpretation.


I thought that that was dealt with in '91?

The 50,000 Shiites who were lined up and executed in '93 might disagree, for example.


The reason I'm referring to is that overthrowing Saddam presented a great strategic goal to Dubya and the US. i.e. the whole oil issue.

Overthrowing Saddam most certainly presented a great stategic goal to Dubya; that's precisely what he says, right? He mentions alot of reasons why it's a strategic goal; but none of them is oil.

You can bet that some factions in the American government had strategic interests there he didn't mention, but it's unlikely oil ranks very high on that list (consider that the trouble here started when Iraq wanted to seize Kuwait's oil; that Kuwait is a US ally; and that oil has had to be imported into Iraq).


I view him as a bigger potential threat. Doesn't threat imply a future event...

Yes, but it also implies some sort of underlying reasoning. And while your off the cuff opinions about his sanity might persuade you, I'm sure you understand they're not very compelling as an argument presented to others.

[CaptinPickAxe]

Where is Saddam #2-6 @?

[Toby]

Originally posted by Christopher M
The 50,000 Shiites who were lined up and executed in '93 might disagree, for example.

I'm low on facts. I was unaware of that. Just another uninformed internet opinion :p. Still, '93 is hardly an immediate threat that needed to be stopped in '03, is it?


Overthrowing Saddam most certainly presented a great stategic goal to Dubya; that's precisely what he says, right? He mentions alot of reasons why it's a strategic goal; but none of them is oil.

You can bet that some factions in the American government had strategic interests there he didn't mention, but it's unlikely oil ranks very high on that list (consider that the trouble here started when Iraq wanted to seize Kuwait's oil; that Kuwait is a US ally; and that oil has had to be imported into Iraq).

Iraq might've needed to import oil, but with their potential oil reserves, they might just need some expertise to help them develop their oil fields. Like, say, the expertise that companies like Halliburton and Enron could supply ;)


Yes, but it also implies some sort of underlying reasoning. And while your off the cuff opinions about his sanity might persuade you, I'm sure you understand they're not very compelling as an argument presented to others.

No reasoning. I don't need reasoning to think that he may be trigger-happy. Just my opinion. Just like I am of the opinion that the old guy who talks to himself on the train is crazy. I'm not trying to compel anyone to my opinion. I don't think I'm alone in coming up with my views, however. So maybe you and other Bush supporters might want to give him some advice on improving his public persona ;).

<edit - bleh, fixed my quote tags/>

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Toby
Still, '93 is hardly an immediate threat that needed to be stopped in '03, is it?

Keep in mind, this was brought up simply to illustrate that there is plenty other than WMD in Iraq that people are concerned about.


Iraq might've needed to import oil, but with their potential oil reserves, they might just need some expertise to help them develop their oil fields.

This would be more convincing if they had some remarkable oil reserves, if more accessible places didn't, and if there were not plenty of non-oil reasons already on the table.


No reasoning. I don't need reasoning to think that he may be trigger-happy.

From my point of view, on issues where so many lives and so much suffering hang in the balance, it's objectionable to choose a position, let alone strongly hold it, based on whim.


So maybe you and other Bush supporters might want to give him some advice on improving his public persona

I'm not a Bush supporter; and since he's probably going to win the next election, my advice is likely not needed either way.

[Toby]

Originally posted by Christopher M
Keep in mind, this was brought up simply to illustrate that there is plenty other than WMD in Iraq that people are concerned about.

Fair point.


This would be more convincing if they had some remarkable oil reserves, if more accessible places didn't, and if there were not plenty of non-oil reasons already on the table.

Really? Stats I've read say Iraq has 10-11% of worldwide oil reserves. Oil which is highly accessible, being relatively shallow. As to non-oil reasons, I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that Dubya would wage war on Saddam out of the goodness of his heart. I'm more inclined to believe stuff like oil, family vendetta, strategic importance, results of 9/11, etc.


From my point of view, on issues where so many lives and so much suffering hang in the balance, it's objectionable to choose a position, let alone strongly hold it, based on whim.

I don't need to justify my opinion. It's just as difficult for you to prove he's not insane as it is for me to prove he is. I would never be able to create a bulletproof case, and neither would you.

As to the oppression in Iraq, I am certainly not a fan of what Saddam did. However, I don't think it was up to the U.S. (and us, and the U.K.) to play world vigilante and step in and supervise. Not our business, and if it were, not as a pre-emptive attack. That is a shaky justification at best, IMO.


I'm not a Bush supporter; and since he's probably going to win the next election, my advice is likely not needed either way.

Sorry, your posts implied you were. I hope he doesn't win. But that's just my political leanings.

Anyway, I've had enough internet arguing for one day. Maybe I'll check in tomorrow. Thanks for the discussion.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Toby
As to non-oil reasons, I'm sorry...

My "plenty of non-oil reasons" didn't mean to rest on Dubya's goodness of heart. Among the conspiratorial, nefarious reasons, oil doesn't rank particularly high.


I find it hard to believe that Dubya would wage war on Saddam out of the goodness of his heart.

If you mean, you find it hard to believe that he would wage war to liberate the Iraqi people - why? I'm wary that perhaps there is circular reasoning going on here (he wouldn't because he is evil, and he is evil because he wouldn't).


It's just as difficult for you to prove he's not insane

This isn't true. If no argument can be given for sanity nor insanity, it's not a toss-up: the default goes to sanity. This is both by definition and by statistical probability.


As to the oppression in Iraq, I am certainly not a fan of what Saddam did. However, I don't think it was up to the U.S. to play world vigilante

Unlike the oil and WMD issues, this is a criticism I'd find coherent. Although I'd disagree with it: I don't think it's morally acceptable to allow such things to occur, unless the cost of intervention would be higher than the original cost of the "oppression."


Sorry, your posts implied you were.

The world's not black and white. I can think someone isn't the biggest threat to world peace without being their avid supporter. I can oppose something for reasons other than those popularized by partisan media. And I can support one thing someone has done yet oppose other things.


I hope he doesn't win.

Same here.


Thanks for the discussion.

You too. Take care.

[Toby]

Couldn't resist :D. Even though I should be leaving work 10 min ago.


Originally posted by Christopher M
If you mean, you find it hard to believe that he would wage war to liberate the Iraqi people - why? I'm wary that perhaps there is circular reasoning going on here (he wouldn't because he is evil, and he is evil because he wouldn't).

Don't worry, no circular reasoning. I think he's mad, insane, crazy, but not evil. Just dumb.


This isn't true. If no argument can be given for sanity nor insanity, it's not a toss-up: the default goes to sanity. This is both by definition and by statistical probability.

In your sane world, maybe.


Unlike the oil and WMD issues, this is a criticism I'd find coherent. Although I'd disagree with it: I don't think it's morally acceptable to allow such things to occur, unless the cost of intervention would be higher than the original cost of the "oppression."

I'd have to take that on a case-by-case basis. I'm not advocating apathy, but I don't think it was our problem to solve, and if so, not in that way.


The world's not black and white. I can think someone isn't the biggest threat to world peace without being their avid supporter. I can oppose something for reasons other than those popularized by partisan media. And I can support one thing someone has done yet oppose other things.

Sure. Like I used to support John Howard. Thought he was a good leader. Agreed with his policies. However, he's done some questionable things as well. Now I don't know how I'll vote. The new opposition leader is more my style, provided he has some good policies. He's got some "interesting" views on Dubya, too :D. If you're interested, his name is Mark Latham. Popularity's on the rise.

Seeya.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Toby
Don't worry, no circular reasoning. I think he's mad, insane, crazy, but not evil. Just dumb.

Well... same difference.


I'd have to take that on a case-by-case basis.

Absolutely. And this particular case has some very compelling reasons for intervention.

[Kristoffer]

A gentlemen discussion so far. I'm impressed

[Repulsive Monkey]

I don't wanna start anything xenophobic I don't think America should rejoice too loudly about their latest catch, as I'm sure other Saddamites are a bit concerned that the net may now be closing in on them, but the person who should be shaking in his boots the most, apart from Saddam, should be Donald Rumsfeld who sold armaments to Sadam back in the 80's to aid his military actions. I'm sure as he knows it will blow up in face, that he will be feeling rather edhy at this time too with this special relationship he had with Saddam back then!?

[Souljah]

Just found a good chronology of events of Saddams uprisal and Demise.....Enjoy!


A glance at the life of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein:



April 28, 1937 -- Born in village near desert town of Tikrit, north of Baghdad.



1957 -- Joins underground Baath Socialist Party.



1958 -- Arrested for killing his brother-in-law, a Communist, spends six months in prison.



Oct. 7, 1959 -- On Baath assassination team that ambushes Iraqi strongman Gen. Abdel-Karim Kassem in Baghdad, wounding him. Saddam, wounded in leg, flees to Syria then Egypt.



[This was not the only attempt to assassinate Kassem. In April 1960, the CIA approved using a poisoned handkerchief to kill Kassem. The "handkerchief was duly dispatched to Kassem, but whether or not it ever reached him, it certainly did not kill him." (Thomas Powers, The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA, New York: Knopf, 1979, p. 130.)]



Feb. 8, 1963 -- Returns from Egypt after Baath takes part in coup that overthrows and kills Kassem. Baath ousted by military in November.



[The coup was backed by the CIA.



"As its instrument the C.I.A. had chosen the authoritarian and anti-Communist Baath Party, in 1963 still a relatively small political faction influential in the Iraqi Army. According to the former Baathist leader Hani Fkaiki, among party members colluding with the C.I.A. in 1962 and 1963 was Saddam Hussein....



"According to Western scholars, as well as Iraqi refugees and a British human rights organization, the 1963 coup was accompanied by a bloodbath. Using lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the C.I.A., the Baathists systematically murdered untold numbers of Iraq's educated elite -- killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated. No one knows the exact toll, but accounts agree that the victims included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers and other professionals as well as military and political figures." (Roger Morris, "A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making," New York Times, March 14, 2003, p. A29.)]



July 17, 1968 -- Baathists and army officers overthrow regime.



["Again, this coup, amid more factional violence, came with C.I.A. backing. Serving on the staff of the National Security Council under Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon in the late 1960's, I often heard C.I.A. officers -- including Archibald Roosevelt, grandson of Theodore Roosevelt and a ranking C.I.A. official for the Near East and Africa at the time -- speak openly about their close relations with the Iraqi Baathists." (Morris, "A Tyrant 40 Years in the Making," p. A29.)]



July 30, 1968 -- Takes charge of internal security after Baath ousts erstwhile allies and authority passes to Revolutionary Command Council under Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, Saddam's cousin.



[From 1973-75, the United States, Iran, and Israel supported a Kurdish insurgency in Iraq. Documents examined by the U.S. House Select Committee on Intelligence "clearly show that the President, Dr. Kissinger and the [Shah] hoped that our clients [the Kurds] would not prevail. They preferred instead that the insurgents simply continue a level of hostilities sufficient to sap [Iraqi] resourcesY. This policy was not imparted to our clients, who were encouraged to continue fighting. Even in the context of covert action, ours was a cynical enterprise." Then, in 1975, the Shah and Saddam Hussein of Iraq signed an agreement giving Iran territorial concessions in return for Iran's closing its border to Kurdish guerrillas. Teheran and Washington promptly cut off their aid to the Kurds and, while Iraq massacred the rebels, the United States refused them asylum. Kissinger justified this U.S. policy in closed testimony: "covert action should not be confused with missionary work." (U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Intelligence, 19 Jan. 1976 [Pike Report] in Village Voice, 16 Feb. 1976, pp. 85, 87n465, 88n471. The Pike Report attributes the last quote only to a "senior official"; William Safire, Safire's Washington, New York: Times Books, 1980, p. 333, identifies the official as Kissinger.)]



July 16, 1979 -- Takes over as president from al-Bakr, launches massive purge of Baath.



[In the late 1970s, Saddam also purged the Iraqi Communist Party and other oppositionists. (Marion Farouk-Sluglett and Peter Sluglett, Iraq Since 1958, London: I. B. Tauris, 1990, pp. 182-87) "We see no fundamental incompatibility of interests between the United States and Iraq," declared U.S. National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in April 1980. (Quoted in Barry Rubin, "The United States and Iraq: From Appeasement to War," in Iraq's Road to War, ed. Amatzia Baram and Barry Rubin, New York: St. Martin's 1993, p. 256.)]



Sept. 22, 1980 -- Sends forces into Iran; war last eight years.



[When Iraq invaded Iran, the United Nations Security Council waited four days before holding a meeting. On September 28, it passed Resolution 479 calling for an end to the fighting, but which significantly did not condemn (nor even mention) the Iraqi aggression and did not demand a return to internationally recognized boundaries. As Ralph King, who has studied the UN response in detail, concluded, "The Council more or less deliberately ignored Iraq's actions in September 1980." The U.S. delegate noted that Iran, which had itself violated Security Council resolutions on the U.S. embassy hostages, could hardly complain about the Council's lackluster response. (R.P.H. King, "The United Nations and the Iran‑Iraq War, 1980‑1986," in The United Nations and the Iran‑Iraq War, ed. Brian Urquhart and Gary Sick, New York: Ford Foundation, August 1987.)



Despite the fact that Iraq had been the aggressor in this war and that Iraq was the first to use chemical weapons, the first to launch air attacks on cities, and the initiator of the tanker war, the United States tilted toward Iraq. The U.S. removed Iraq from its list of terrorist states in 1982, sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad as Reagan's envoy to meet with Saddam Hussein in 1983 and 1984 to discuss economic cooperation, re-established diplomatic relations in November 1984, made available extensive loans and subsidies, provided intelligence information, encouraged its allies to arm Iraq, and engaged in military actions in the Persian Gulf against Iran. The United States also provided dual-use equipment that it knew Iraq was using for military purposes. (See Joyce Battle, ed., "Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984," National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82, Feb. 25, 2003, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/.)]



March 28, 1988 -- Uses chemical weapons against Kurdish town of Halabja, killing estimated 5,000 civilians.



[From Iraq's first use of chemical weapons in 1983, the U.S. took a very restrained view. When the evidence of Iraqi use of these weapons could no longer be denied, the U.S. issued a mild condemnation, but made clear that this would have no effect on commercial or diplomatic relations between the United States and Iraq. Iran asked the Security Council to condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use, but the U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to try to prevent a resolution from coming to a vote, or else to abstain. An Iraqi official told the U.S. that Iraq strongly preferred a Security Council presidential statement to a resolution and did not want any specific country identified as responsible for chemical weapons use. On March 30, 1984, the Security Council issued a presidential statement condemning the use of chemical weapons, without naming Iraq as the offending party. (Battle, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/.)



At the same time that the U.S. government had knowledge of that the Iraqi military was using chemical weapons, it was providing intelligence and planning assistance to the Iraqi armed forces. (Patrick Tyler, "Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq In War Despite Use Of Gas," New York Times, Aug. 18, 2002, p. 1.)



When Iraq used chemical weapons in March 1988 against Halabja, there was no condemnation from Washington. (Dilip Hiro, "When US turned a blind eye to poison gas," The Observer, September 1, 2002, p. 17.) "In September 1988, the House of Representatives voted 388 to 16 in favor of economic sanctions against Iraq, but the White House succeeded in having the Senate water down the proposal. In exchange for Export-Import Bank credits, Iraq merely had to promise not to use chemical weapons again, with agricultural credits exempted even from this limited requirement." (Rubin, "The United States and Iraq: From Appeasement to War," p. 261.)]

[Souljah]

Aug. 2, 1990 -- Invades Kuwait.



[The chronology omits one of Saddam Hussein's most egregious atrocities, his Anfal campaign against the Kurds from 1987-89, in which at least 50,000 and possibly 100,000 Kurds were systematically slaughtered. (Middle East Watch, Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds, New York: Human Rights Watch, 1993.)



The response of the new Bush administration was to increase Iraq's commodity credits from half a billion to a billion dollars, making it the second largest user of the credit program in the world. As late as April 1990, the administration was opposing sanctions against Iraq ("They would hurt U.S. exporters and worsen our trade deficit," said the State Department). (Guy Gugliotta, Charles R. Bab****, and Benjamin Weiser, "At War, Iraq Courted U.S. Into Economic Embrace," Washington Post, Sept. 16, 1990, p. A1.) The administration also blocked efforts to cut back high-tech exports to Iraq with obvious military applications. (Douglas Frantz and Murray Waas, "Bush insisted on aiding Iraq until war's onset," Chicago Sun-Times, Feb. 23, 1992, p. 17.) And the United States was providing intelligence data to Iraq until three months before the invasion. (Murray Waas, Douglas Frantz, "U.S. shared intelligence with Iraq until 3 months before invasion of Kuwait," Houston Chronicle, March 10, 1992, p. A6.)]



Jan. 17, 1991 -- Attacked by U.S.-led coalition; Kuwait liberated in a month.



[As part of the U.S.-led attack, the civilian infrastructure of Iraq was intentionally targeted (Barton Gellman, "Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq; Officials Acknowledge Strategy Went Beyond Purely Military Targets," Washington Post, 23 June 1991, p. A1; Thomas J. Nagy, "The Secret Behind the Sanctions," Progressive, Sept. 2001), which together with more than a decade of economic sanctions would lead to hundreds of thousands of excess deaths. (See Richard Garfield, "Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children From 1990 through 1998: Assessing the Impact of the Gulf War and Economic Sanctions," March 1999, http://www.fourthfreedom.org/php/t-si-index.php?hinc=garf-index.hinc.)]



March, 1991 -- Crushes Shiite revolt in south and Kurd revolt in north.



[After urging Iraqis to rise up against Saddam Hussein, the U.S. denied the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and allowed Saddam Hussein to use his helicopters to slaughter the insurgents as U.S. aircraft circled overhead. (Andrew ****burn and Patrick ****burn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, New York: Harperperennial. 1999, chap. 1)]



April 17, 1991 -- Complying with U.N. Resolution 687, starts providing information on weapons of mass destruction, but accused of cheating.



Feb. 20, 1996 -- Orders killing of two sons-in-law who in 1995 defected to Jordan and had just returned to Baghdad after receiving guarantees of safety.



Dec. 16, 1998 -- Weapons inspectors withdrawn from Iraq. Hours later, four days of U.S.-British air and missile strikes begin as punishment for lack of cooperation.



[The bombing was conducted without Security Council approval and without consultations with allies. The withdrawal of the inspectors was ordered by Richard Butler, the head of UNSCOM. "France was also annoyed with Washington for getting Mr. Butler to pull out his inspectors from Iraq without discussion with the Security Council." U.S. Secretary of State "Albright did not speak with Secretary General Kofi Annan at the United Nations, officials said. Mr. Annan issued a personal statement, calling this 'a sad day' for the world and 'me personally,' because of his failure to avert the use of force." (Steven Erlanger, "U.S. Decision to Act Fast, and Then Search for Support, Angers Some Allies," New York Times, Dec. 17, 1998, p. A14.)]



Nov. 8, 2002 -- Threatened with "serious consequences" if he does not disarm in U.N. Security Council resolution.



Nov. 27, 2002 -- Allows U.N. experts to begin work in Iraq for first time since 1998.



Dec. 7, 2002 -- Delivers to United Nations declaration denying Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; later, United States says declaration is untruthful and United Nations says it is incomplete.



March 1, 2003 -- United Arab Emirates, at an Arab League summit, becomes first Arab nation to propose publicly that Saddam step down.



March 7 -- United States, Britain and Spain propose ordering Saddam to give up banned weapons by March 17 or face war; other nations led by France on polarized U.N. Security Council oppose any new resolution that would authorize military action.



March 17 -- United States, Britain and Spain declare time for diplomacy over, withdraw proposed resolution. President Bush gives Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq.



[Actually, U.S. officials made clear that U.S. troops would enter Iraq whether or not Saddam and his sons left the country. (Michael R. Gordon, "Allies Will Move In, Even if Saddam Hussein Moves Out," New York Times, March 18, 2003, p. A16.)]



March 18 -- Iraq's leadership rejects Bush's ultimatum.



["On the eve of war, Iraq publicly offered unlimited access for American and British weapons hunters." (David Rennie, "Saddam 'offered Bush a huge oil deal to avert war'," Daily Telegraph [London], Nov. 7, 2003, p. 17) And privately Iraq went well beyond this. In several back-channel contacts with U.S. officials, Iraq offered the U.S. "direct U.S. involvement on the ground in disarming Iraq," oil concessions, the turn-over of a wanted terrorist, cooperation on the Israeli-Palestinian peace-process, and even internationally-supervised elections within two years. (James Risen, "Iraq Said to Have Tried to Reach Last-Minute Deal to Avert War," New York Times, Nov. 6, 2003, p. A1) One doesn't know where these offers may have led, since they were rejected by the U.S.: "A US intelligence source insisted that the decision not to negotiate came from the White House, which was demanding complete surrender. According to an Arab source, [a U.S. intermediary] sent a Saudi official a set of requirements he believed Iraq would have to fulfill. Those demands included Saddam's abdication and departure, first to a US military base for interrogation and then into supervised exile, a surrender of Iraqi troops, and the admission that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. (Julian Borger, Brian Whitaker, and Vikram Dodd "Saddam's desperate offers to stave off war," Guardian, Nov. 7, 2003, p. 3.)]



March 20 -- U.S. forces open war with military strike on Dora Farms, a target south of Baghdad where Saddam and his sons are said to be. Saddam appears on Iraqi television later in the day.



April 4 -- Iraqi television shows video of Saddam walking a Baghdad street.



April 7 -- U.S. warplanes bomb a section of the Mansour district in Baghdad where Saddam and his sons were said to be meeting.



April 9 -- Jubilant crowds greet U.S. troops in Baghdad, go on looting rampages, topple 40-foot statue of Saddam.



July 22 -- Saddam's sons, Qusai and Odai, killed in gunbattle with U.S. troops. American forces then raid the northern city of Mosul and later say they missed Saddam "by a matter of hours."



July 27 -- U.S. troops raid three farms in Tikrit. Again, officials later say they missed Saddam by 24 hours.



July 31 -- Two of Saddam's daughters, Raghad and Rana, and their nine children are given asylum by Jordan's King Abdullah II.



[That they would need asylum follows from the U.S. policy of detaining family members of those they are seeking, in violation of elementary standards of justice. ("The arrest of close relatives of fugitive regime members has been used by US forces in the past both as a way to gather intelligence - through interrogation - and to put emotional pressure on the hunted men to surrender." Colin Nickerson, "US Troops Detain Wife, Daughter Of Key Hussein Aide Ex-Deputy Suspected Of Plotting Attacks In Iraqi Insurgency," Boston Globe, Nov. 27, 2003, p. A40.)]



Sept. 5 -- Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno of the 4th Infantry Division says his troops have captured several of Saddam's former bodyguards in the Tikrit area in the past month and may be closing in on the deposed Iraqi dictator.



Nov. 16 -- The last of nine tapes attributed to Saddam Hussein since he was removed from power is released. It tells Iraqis to step up their resistance to the U.S.-led occupation, saying the United States and its allies misjudged the difficulty of occupying Iraq.



[It didn't take a genius to note that "the United States and its allies misjudged the difficulty of occupying Iraq."]



Dec. 13 -- Saddam is captured at 8:30 p.m. in the town of Adwar, 10 miles south of Tikrit. He is hiding in a specially prepared "spider hole."

[Volcano Admim]

american public = tools

america is the greatest nation
of tools

[Black Jack]

Valcano you are the living testament to the fact that human beings can actually breed with rubber *****es.

[Volcano Admim]

BJ, you always die ina middle eatern prison when i play with my GI Joe toys
i happen to use Agent Scarlett to represent you btw

i am the ninja of course, or sometimes i am Ken from the Barbie series.

[Kristoffer]

yea semper fi mufaka











:rolleyes:

[Kristoffer]

:D

[Chang Style Novice]

After a particularly sh!tty day, XXXXXX suggested exchanging an early Christmas present as a cheer-up method. We aren't going to see each other over the holidays, since we're both out of town, so I figured, what the fiddle. I gave her the big fat biography of Mark Rothko, and she gave me one of the Taschen books of 1940s advertising art.

I'm gonna have a lot to say about this thing later, because it's really an amazing document on any number of levels. It's simultaneously depressing and enthralling, and it instills you with a real aesthetic confusion when you realize how incredible and influential the art and design are, but also how completely our national iconography revolves around advertising.

But I do want to touch very quickly on something that I've mentioned before, but that's really driven home by reading this book. People like James Lileks are incredibly fond of comparing (unfavorably) the national character now to the national character during WWII, just as if (a) we were in a remotely comparable situation or (b) we were, you know, actually at war. People like this will always wheeze about how back in the Big One, you didn't have a bunch of muddleheaded naysayers second-guessing everything the military did and the President said. This is all well and good if you're trying to come off as a sort of colorful, ignorant crank, but it doesn't bear even the slightest scrutiny. The divergence of attitudes has nothing to do with America have become soft or self-centered or overly liberal or befuddled by relativism or any of that horse****; it has everything to do with the fact that what happened in New York two years ago was a crime and not an act of war, that we weren't attacked in even remotely the same way as we were back then and we remain unconvinced that we're attacking the right people (something that wasn't even in question in 1941), and that people today aren't certain that the President has their best interests at heart.

Anyway, when you look at ads from the 1940s -- which I do a lot -- one thing strikes you: the tone of the advertisements is...well, not anti-consumer, really; but reflective of the national attitude that everyone was going to have to pull together, cut down on consumption, and make do for the duration. "If you can't find our product," one ad reads, "you'll know why." Another says "See you after the war"; another, "When there's peace, we'll be glad to have you back in the family". The government took out ads urging people not to buy new products, to make their old goods last, to conserve and re-use for the sake of the country. And, for the most part, nobody complained.

This is literally unthinkable today. Even though a big part of why the Arab world loathes us -- and a big part of why we're fighting this "war" in the first place -- is because of our suicidal, ultimately unsustainable addiction to oil and entirely disproportionate consumption of the world's resources, no advertiser even contemplates asking us to buy less, to be patient, to wait and see. We're given credit to buy what we can't afford; we're urged to buy the newest things as soon as they come out; we're told that only by buying and consuming can we show our national unity and prove to the terrorists that they haven't won. Far from pitching in for the war effort, big corporations soak the government (and, ultimately, the taxpayer) for the goods they supply. Far from telling us the ugly truth -- that in order to survive, we must cut back on our massive overconsumption -- the government refuses to sign the Kyoto protocols, spends half its time denying that there's any problems with the environment, and gives us tax breaks for buying fuel-chugging SUVs. Neither advertsers nor politicians dare tell us that reality demands that we pull together and live within our means; rather, we are told, you get what you want when you want it no matter what, and it will never run out or be scarce, because the world and everything in it belongs to us.

See you after the war? There is no "after the war". Not this time.