http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,982710,00.html85 responses total.
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.)
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
For excerpts of the story, see Spring Agora item 214, response 56. (Which I posted 40 hours before this item. You were scooped, PT! (: )
NO Way.
sheep smugglers?
I'd heard that sheep fetch much better prices in Syria than in Iraq...
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?
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!
17:26 U.S. offers $25 million for any information leading to capture
of Saddam Hussein or proves that he is dead
Sad'ham is not dead. He's just pine-ing for the fiords.
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.
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?????)
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.
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.
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.
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).
There's also a strong correlation between igorance and bliss, though.
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.
#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
Let's not forget that "conservative" comes from "conserve" -- to keep the good we've got, or think we have, or some such.
Then why do conservatives want to destroy some of the "good" we have, such as individual rights, the enviroment, and world peace?
Supposedly, the last thing conservatives would want to do is destroy individual rights. American conservatives are special, though.
(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.
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.
Mr. rcurl, Are you familiar with the concepts of "many" and "all"? They are not the same. Perhaps you need to be enlightened. We presume you have access to a dictionary. Regards, klg
the thing is that the liberals tend to go out and make noise, conservatives tend to sit back and do what they need to do to live. they don't have time to protest.
Re #16: Regardless of what's great about your house, one leak in the roof is cause for immediate repairs. So with the country.
I don't know that I'd take either party's label literally. I think
"conservative" as it applies to politics is the same sort of "conservative"
that applies to dress, not necessarily the sort of conservation that aims at
protecting the status quo, and certainly not the sort of conservation that
aims at protecting wildlife.
I don't think the generalization that the better-off middle classes
and the rich make up the bulk of American conservatives. There just aren't
enough of them. There are plenty of working-class conservatives, who seem
to back political decisions that are just plain bad for them. Inosfar as I
can tell, that's because of a shared way of looking at the world, even though
I don't think either party necessarily acts according to the way of looking
at the world that they propose.
I'm still in awe about how much the halo effect applies to people of
similar political standing. I know few liberals who were truly angry at
Clinton's misuse of federal resources to thwart an investigation into his
affairs, and few conservatives who're angry at Rumsfeld's granting no-bid
contracts to corporations he owns a substantial interest in.
It's the Republicrat effect. The enemy is the embodiment of many or all the things my side find distasteful and/or evil, and my side, in fighting the enemy, must therefore embody that which is decent and good. Villainizing the other side is a political constant. It's also inaccurate and counter-productive, and makes the country a much less pleasant place to live in. Want proof? Extensive polls have taken place, often called "elections," and a majority of the citizens of the United States have votes with their, well, disinterest in voting. People on the whole don't put energy into caring about politics. It's not worth their time. It's like sewage treatment. People generally understand the need for it, but they really don't want to have to watch it too closely.
Hehehehe ... from here (in the context of this thread), Bush looks like that cross between a dog and Saddam Hussein in the movie hotshots. He seems to have the evil of the both, the republicans and democrats.
Go eat some curry.
(Why is Mr. senna typically so cynical? Distinctions are a fact of life. It is not necessary to consider them so odious.)
Re #29: People don't put energy into caring about politics because they mostly wish it would go away and let them get on with living; the issues by and large are too esoteric to be easily understood and too far away to feel real. (Who had any idea that the DMCA was coming, and what it would do? Even today how many people are directly affected, or even know enough to care?) Re #32: Distinction and demonization are not synonymous.
(That's "uninterest", carson; "disinterest" does not mean "lack of care". A disinterested observer is one not affected by the outcome.)
Both parties use rhetoric and illusion to their benefit, though. A
good example is sloganeering - neither "family values" nor "freedom of choice"
is a very accurate representation of the issue of government intrusion into
private morality or the abortion debate, but both touch on key words that
inspire an emotional, not logical, response.
I'm not embarrassed that Sadam has not been caught or proved dead. My problem with the bounty is that it seems to put way too much importance on Sadam. Yes, if he's alive he's a potential focal point for people who want to undo whatever good America may do in Iraq. However, those forces will find a focal point even if he's dead. Catching Sadam should be fairly low on our priority list. We have a couple generations of hard work to do to encourage the growth of a healthy government in Iraq. I'd like to see some sign that our government knows that. This big reward for Sadam makes it look like this is some kind of personal feud with Sadam. OK, I admit. I don't really want America to take on the job of turning Iraq into a sane country. That's a nightmare of a job, expensive, thankless, and probably futile. Doing it would make some retroactive sense out of this stupid war, but it probably can't be done, so why bother? Probably we should hand the job over to the UN, so we can blame them when it doesn't work. I guess that's the plan anyway, and we just want to kill Sadam so that the same face doesn't pop back up in charge when we leave, because that would make us obviously laughable. A different face who behaves identically would be so much less embarrassing, and more plausibly blameable on the UN.
Politically the best thing that we can do is allow the UN - and
especially those allies critical of the war effort - to do the restructuring,
and provide unconditional humanitarian aid. People don't forget being fed.
When they grow bitter over the new regime and resent foriegn intervention,
the finger will be pointed elsewhere.
Unfortunately, this doesn't give us much control over Iraq in the
meantime, so it probably won't happen.
A bounty, at this point, is an obsessive use of power. How much better it would be in preventing either Saddam's return or the installation of a Saddam-like leader if we'd instead put that $25 million into building two or three schools.
re:16-28 Good God-- a conservative vs. liberal debate. Should I be glad the moderates are left out? Such crap.
A school that I know of that was built in India cost $10,000. Schools in Iraq (built with local labor and materials) could not possibly cost $8 million.
Any facts/figures about how much the US spent on the war and how much are they spending on rebuilding/food/medicines/restructuring Iraq? That should put an end to a lot of debate/rhetoric here.
Re#40, I think Mary's point was that if you have $25 million to spend, then spend it on food/medicines/rebuilding Iraq rather than on catching Saddam Hussein. For eg., Iraqis in Baghdad are still waiting for electricity to be restored. Something that was working well before the war. Or clean water!! And this is just Baghdad. Other cities like Basra are far worse off. Re#31, Go eat a hotdog or whatever a stereotypical US citizen is supposed to be eating.
Can't we just all eat hotdogs with curry and all get along and live in peace? (Better than Apple Pie with curry!)
re#42: currently the electricity in baghdad is about what it was pre gulf-war-II. Improvements need to be made there and are. It might surprise you to know that there are no sewage treatment plants in baghdad in the first place so the current building of them in a definate step forward. I expect the bounty on sadaam and his sons is in addition to the new construction not taken from.
What were they doing with sewage, then? Pumping it into the ground untreated?
A school in Iraq could easily cost $8 million, if it's subcontracted
through Haliburton with bricks produced domestically.
Re #15: > I also feel embarrassed by the people who expect this to take days > instead of years. Like Bush? His planning for the post-war situation was rather lacking, from the looks of things. The Iraqis haven't been quite as friendly and accepting as he assured us they'd be. Re #28: > There are plenty of working-class conservatives, who seem > to back political decisions that are just plain bad for them. Conservative politics are often hereditary. There are also parts of the country where it's just not considered proper to be anything but conservative. "...no Texan need grow up thinking that being a Democrat is acceptable behavior." -- GOP strategist Grover Norquist.
http://www.costofwar.com/
re: "#47 (gull): ... The Iraqis haven't been quite as friendly and accepting as he assured us they'd be...." Really? The televised results of a recent poll we saw over the weekend showed that Iraqis are in favor of the continued American administra- tion by a margin of nearly 4 to 1.
They also voted 99% for Saddam in their last elections.
This response has been erased.
Wrong, again, Mr. rcurl. BBC headline: Wednesday, 16 October, 2002, 11:41 GMT 12:41 UK "Saddam 'wins 100% of vote'"
Re #49: They've also been shooting our troops at the rate of several a week for quite a while now. I think we've now suffered more fatalities in the "peace" than we did in the war. Of course, our administration there has been doing some stuff I find pretty inexplicable, too. The two decisions that have really amazed me lately are the decision to print more currency with Saddam's face on it, and the decision to start censoring Iraqi newspapers. Re #51: I personally never said "Iraq will be another Vietnam", but it does seem to be heading that direction now. Every day it looks more like a guerilla war.
Why would such an apology be owed to the troops? Do you think "Iraq will be another Vietnam" is a criticism of our troops? The only way I could see that making sense would be if you thought Vietnam became the kind of situation it did because our troops there weren't up to doing the job right. Maybe you're the one who owes some military folks an apology. Though I'm no expert, I'm prepared to believe the the US has the best military on the planet, not only in technological sophistication, but in training and dedication, and the quality of their military commanders. I wouldn't trade the US military for any force that has ever existed in the history of the universe. I don't, however, think that they are so angelic that any mission they might be sent on would automatically become blessed with goodness by the mere fact of their presence. I don't hold that against them though.
This response has been erased.
I see Vietnam as a good example of political and military over-optimism. We had great technology, well-trained troops, etc. But basically there isn't any really cool technological way to prevent little harrassing attacks during an occupation - especially if the enemy has less to lose than you.
Iraq is only like Vietnam in that it is a military operation this country never should have engaged in. That is my opinion. While it isnt my intention to degrade or demotivate our military, if protesting the war does that to them, it isnt my fault. I have nothing against soldiers. Sometimes they get sent to fight and die in wars this country shouldnt fight. I would have no problem explaining my views to a vet.
Re #51: tod is confusing badly "protesting against the war" and "speaking badly against our military". The protests were (and are) AGAINST THE WAR, NOT THE MILITARY. The war should not have been declared - oh, sorry, yes I know it wasn't declared: the war should not have been fought. However our military fought the military war brilliantly (except for the nonsense of "shock and awe" - but that was the promoters of the war, not the military). Unfortunately, our military seems incapable of "nation building", but then, that should not be their assignment, since they are only trained to fight wars.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
re: "#53 (gull): Re #49: They've also been shooting our troops at the rate of several a week for quite a while now. I think we've now suffered more fatalities in the "peace" than we did in the war." Mr. gull, Your's is the first declaration of peace that I seem to recall having seen. Additionally, upon what authority do you have it that those who have been killing our troops are solely Iraqi nationals? Regards, klg re: #58 (rcurl): ... The protests were (and are) AGAINST THE WAR, NOT THE MILITARY...." Mr. rcurl, Based upon knowledge of the groups and individuals which organized and sponsored the protests, we find your assertion to be patently false. Regards, klg
You certainly have a short and inaccurate memory. "Military readiness" was hardly cited by anyone as a main argument against the war. The main argument is that we had no business initiating an unprovoked pre-emptory war in violation of the UN charter and in the face of UN opposition.
This response has been erased.
Re #51: So, Tod, how's the development and democratization going in Afghanistan? People got increasing faith in the central government? No chance of the warlords getting out of hand again and popular discontent leading to another takeover by the likes of Taliban? A lot of people opposed the war because they figured that we'd win the war but lose the peace and come out worse. So far they seem to have been calling it pretty well. If I were running Iraq right now, the first thing I would do is conduct a census. The second thing I would do is to put all of the national industries under corporate ownership, and distribute shares to the entire Iraqi population. Third, I'd start the oil industry (for one) paying dividends from its revenues. If there was any way to convince the whole nation that they don't want anyone like Saddam ever again, that would probably do it.
re resp:64: Some optimism for Afghanistan: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-07-07-afghanistan-usat_x.htm It isn't a cheery picture, but it may be an improving picture.
It's not a pretty picture.
re#45: Nope, the sewers of baghdad and basra, and most other places connected directly to the rivers. Water treatments plants are relatively modern in the US as well, the reversal of the chicago river was a modern marvel - instead of shipping the untreated sewage out into the lake, they reversed the flow of the river and shipped it what was now downstream (Some bright soul decided flushing the toilets into the water faucets wasn's such a good idea...).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3049300.stm "Power cuts are the Americans' greatest failure," the driver told me at the end of the seven-hour long journey through the desert from the Kuwaiti border. "Electricity, electricity is so important. If they only fixed that," he said with a look of frustration rapidly going over into a resigned expression. ================================================================= http://rediff.com/us/2003/jul/07iraq1.htm Time magazine cites US officials, Iraqi Airways staff and other airport workers in its story of US troops stealing duty-free items, needlessly shooting up the airport, and trashing five serviceable Boeing airplanes. =============================================================
Re #59: I don't really see the parallel. We resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis through diplomacy, and there was a very real, very obvious threat there. Iraq's threat to us was considerably more nebulous. Re #61: You don't remember Bush's speech on the aircraft carrier? "Bush didn't actually declare outright victory because to do so would have triggered obligations, returning prisoners of war and not hunting down enemy commanders among them, that the administration is not ready to meet. "But his statement--that "major combat operations have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and its allies have prevailed"--had the same effect. No one ever expected to see the victor and the vanquished sitting across a table negotiating peace in this war." (Chicago Tribune)
re: "#69 (gull): ... We resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis through diplomacy ..." We seem to recall that a naval blockade was involved in that situation.
This response has been erased.
"War is diplomacy by other means," I think the man said.
This response has been erased.
It isn't the preferred option, however (except to "hawks").
(Never said it was.)
wow - venom back there .. i'll pick up on #11 (i think) <returned to connectivith recently> in due time. ummm, threr was a naval blockade reinforcing 'diplomacy' for cuba/russia. walk softly and carry a big stick!
Iraq was more-or-less "blockaded" for years.
More less than more. Seems while Sad-ham may still be alive. He two sons are not. Think of it as evolution in action.
Hmmmm.. the fact that he is and his sons aren't worries me. Good or not,
evil or not... what father wouldn't want vengence for the death of his
children? As once said on Star Trek, there is nothing worse than a wounded
beast...
Doctor Clu /|\
HI )(_#@$ GREG/
This response has been erased.
Let's play clue
Saddam Hussien is not dead. We should definitely not believe any information that is contrary to this fact, unless it comes with absolute verification. Also, considering the reasons for the 2nd Gulf War could become under official investigation by Congress, I don't think that anything the Government says should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Okay.
You have several choices: