|
|
| Author |
Message |
polytarp
|
|
Saddam Hussein is dead
| 
Jun 23 18:36 UTC 2003 |
http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,982710,00.html
|
| 85 responses total. |
dcat
|
|
response 1 of 85:
|
Jun 23 20:45 UTC 2003 |
Try reading the story before you post it:
[M]ilitary sources indicated **they were optimistic** the tests would
show that Saddam and at least one of his two sons, Uday and Qusay,
were among the dead, ***although they stressed that a conclusive
identification of the men killed in the attack had not yet been
made.***
(Emphases added.)
|
sj2
|
|
response 2 of 85:
|
Jun 24 13:08 UTC 2003 |
Saddam Hussein is not dead. This is a lie. Whoever trains guns at
Saddam's convoy will commit suicide. It is the fascits who are dying.
GW Bush and T. Blair are dead. We will take you to their funeral soon.
<blip> <blip> .... aaaaahhhhhhhh
|
lk
|
|
response 3 of 85:
|
Jun 24 22:29 UTC 2003 |
For excerpts of the story, see Spring Agora item 214, response 56.
(Which I posted 40 hours before this item. You were scooped, PT! (: )
|
polytarp
|
|
response 4 of 85:
|
Jun 24 22:52 UTC 2003 |
NO Way.
|
pvn
|
|
response 5 of 85:
|
Jun 27 06:24 UTC 2003 |
sheep smugglers?
|
i
|
|
response 6 of 85:
|
Jun 28 01:24 UTC 2003 |
I'd heard that sheep fetch much better prices in Syria than in Iraq...
|
pvn
|
|
response 7 of 85:
|
Jun 28 05:43 UTC 2003 |
I guess the syrians like their sheep - must be the french influence.
But is is profitable enought to be driving limos to transport the sheep?
|
mrplow
|
|
response 8 of 85:
|
Jul 2 12:20 UTC 2003 |
I dont really care abou saddam. I would rather have it that, that the former
information minister var instatet as new ruler of iraq - it would be
hillarious!
|
lk
|
|
response 9 of 85:
|
Jul 4 00:14 UTC 2003 |
17:26 U.S. offers $25 million for any information leading to capture
of Saddam Hussein or proves that he is dead
|
pvn
|
|
response 10 of 85:
|
Jul 4 06:43 UTC 2003 |
Sad'ham is not dead. He's just pine-ing for the fiords.
|
mary
|
|
response 11 of 85:
|
Jul 4 12:54 UTC 2003 |
Between the "Bring 'em on" comment and the $25 million dollar bounty I'm
left wondering how any country on the planet could respect us at the
moment.
Next time I hope we get somewhat more of an intellectual than a cowboy as
President. This is pretty embarrassing.
|
klg
|
|
response 12 of 85:
|
Jul 4 16:20 UTC 2003 |
Typical. Liberals tend to be ashamed of being American. Conservatives
tend to be proud. (Fortunately, America is turning more conservative.)
(We are baffled. Why would anyone think that this world is better off
with Saddam Hussein running loose?????)
|
other
|
|
response 13 of 85:
|
Jul 5 07:22 UTC 2003 |
Typical. Conservative hacks (as opposed to conservatives in general)
tend to think that liberals who are ashamed of the stupid hick image our
president presents to the world are un-American and in favor of Saddam
Hussein.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 14 of 85:
|
Jul 5 09:52 UTC 2003 |
re:12 and re:13 probably somewhat extremist views. But I've always
taken the middle road and shaken my head and both sides. Figures.
There's a grain of truth to both statements, and I think Eric's is
probably closer to being accurate because it wasn't so sweeping in its
generalizations. What seems to be often masked is that there are
moderates in both major parties. Whether people mean to or not, it
seems to me that discussions are often polarized-- liberals must be
Democrat, and conservatives must be Republican. Choose and get with
the program; to be moderate is to be wishy-washy.
I'm still unsure what to think. Hussein was definitely a terrible
despot, and hopefully, some good will come out of the toppling of his
regime. I agree, though, that a $25 mil bounty seems rather
desperate. If the world wants to be rid of him, he'll eventually be
flushed out.
|
lk
|
|
response 15 of 85:
|
Jul 5 13:43 UTC 2003 |
People in the US manage to go underground and evade police for years.
Eventually some turn up. Now consider how much more difficult it is
to find a person who not only knows the terrain, but is actively
protected by a small segment of the population which remains loyal.
I don't think it's embarrassing that we haven't got him (yet).
I think others are much more embarrassed that the stupid Bush called
Saddam's bluffs, that the war was swift, and that a new administration
is being built.
I also feel embarrassed by the people who expect this to take days
instead of years.
|
klg
|
|
response 16 of 85:
|
Jul 5 17:45 UTC 2003 |
Actually, our statements were substantiated by the results of a poll
(Gallup??) that we heard on the radio last Thursday.
Liberals tend to look at America and see flaws. Conservatives tend to
see a great country. Maybe that's why liberals tend to be less happy
than conservatives (also based on poll results).
|
jazz
|
|
response 17 of 85:
|
Jul 5 17:53 UTC 2003 |
There's also a strong correlation between igorance and bliss, though.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 18 of 85:
|
Jul 5 18:07 UTC 2003 |
It could also have a lot to do with the fact that, at present, Conservatives
control all three branches of government. That would tend to make them think
things are great, and Liberals think otherwise.
|
other
|
|
response 19 of 85:
|
Jul 5 18:16 UTC 2003 |
#16 points out exactly why the conservative community is comprised mostly
of the most mainstream elements of society, and why the more unlike those
in power you are, the more likely you are to be dissatisfied with the
status quo.
#16 effectively says that anyone who is conservative will tend to
overlook the flaws of America, and the reason behind that is that the
flaws disproportionately affect those who are not white, typically male,
and typically solidly middle class or better off. These are the people
who have no reason to be concerned with the flaws of our society, so of
course they're going to be happier and more focused on their own sense of
of how great our contry is for them.
The difference is that liberals tend to base their assessment of how
great our country is on how great it is for ALL of its citizens, not just
those who comprise the majority. And most conservatives are too unable
or unwilling to see beyond the ends of their noses (or their wallets) to
even appreciate why that is.
#18 slipped in
|
lk
|
|
response 20 of 85:
|
Jul 5 18:57 UTC 2003 |
Let's not forget that "conservative" comes from "conserve" -- to keep
the good we've got, or think we have, or some such.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 21 of 85:
|
Jul 5 19:20 UTC 2003 |
Then why do conservatives want to destroy some of the "good" we have, such
as individual rights, the enviroment, and world peace?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 22 of 85:
|
Jul 5 19:51 UTC 2003 |
Supposedly, the last thing conservatives would want to do is destroy
individual rights. American conservatives are special, though.
|
klg
|
|
response 23 of 85:
|
Jul 5 20:13 UTC 2003 |
(We have "world peace"????
Did I miss the memo?)
re: "#19 (other): ... The difference is that liberals tend to base
their assessment of how great our country is on how great it is for ALL
of its citizens, ...."
Thank you, Mr. other. We appreciate your apt identification of one of
the great faults with liberals. They believe they are endowed with the
ability to determine how everyone else feels (or ought to feel). Quite
obviously, this is not possible - as least so far as we know.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 24 of 85:
|
Jul 5 20:39 UTC 2003 |
To the contrary, it is easy to judge how many citizens feel because they
state their feeling, and march, and protest. Anyone with half an eye can
observe this. The problem with many conservatives is they cannot see, they
are so blinded by their self-serving obsessions.
|