The Tyrant is Captured!

[Spike]

The capture of Saddam Hussein is great news for the world. With him out of the way, maybe Bush/Blair can make some quick progress in stabilizing the country so we can get the hell out.

What do you think?

Spike

[subcitizen]

Glad he's out....and im' sure the Bush Administration is too. This practically ensures Bush's reelection. But that's not what this is about, this is about a step forward in fighting tyranny. The Bush Administration put their money where their mouth is and deserves a pat on the back.

-andrew

[Fran]

I predict that we are not going to convince a large segment of the Iraqi population that we really did capture him, and the terrorist attacks will continue any way.
We will take this development however, as a good opportunity to get out and in a few months a new tyrant will develop out of the old regimes remnants. The Iraqi people and the world will be back to where they were. Only this time we will have another training ground for, and source of, terrorists to menace the world.

[joefont]

With Saddam captured and the economy improving (getting Osama is just a matter of time), I think '04 is going to be a very long year for Howard Dean.

[It Should be You]

Originally posted by Chris A
Great for the Iraqi people, but I'm afraid the mess in Iraq is not untangled by the capture of Saddam.

I would feel better if we had captured the man who really poses a threat to us, Osama bin Laden.

If this capture helps get Bush re-elected, then its positive aspects may well be outweighed by the negative. Bush started this ongoing mess for reasons that have little to do with the stated ones. In 2004, we need to cleanse ourselves of this court-appointed thug and his gang.

You took the words out of my mouth (well, pretty close), but I think we are in the minority.

I just heard that the governing council of Iraq will put him on trial. I think it would be better to go through The Hague.

Let's just hope we can capture bin Laden. What New York went through because of him was

(I can't finish my thought or find the words)

[a.j. zeitlin]

We bagged him!

Corks are popping in the White House and Defense Department. Bush is probably determined to keep Sadam away from both the Hague (no death penalty, if I'm not mistaken) and any sort of UN sanctioned trial. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes up the Democratic field, particularly Dean whose opposed the war from the start (call me crazy but I think Dean has moved more towards the middle the last 2-3 weeks).

[Spike]

There is no doubt that this will provide a huge short-term boost for Bush. But it does not ensure his victory in Nov '04. Too much has to go well between now and then:

1) Iraq must be stabilized and authority turned over to an internationally recognized government;

2) Convincing evidence must be provided that Saddam had both weapons of mass destruction and direct links to al Qaeda or the costs in human life and treasure will continue to be questioned;

3) Osama bin Laden -- the mastermind of 9/11 -- must be brought to justice. In addition, the recent spate of violence in Afghanistan must be halted and progress must be made in rooting out remaining Taliban/al Qaeda forces;

4) The recovery of the US economy must actually create jobs to replace the two million lost since Bush became president; and

5) Bush must demonstrate that he at least has a credible plan for reducing the $500 billion annual budget deficits that have resulted from his tax and spending policies.

If Bush can deliver on those five things he will be a shoo in.

Spike

[a.j. zeitlin]

That sigh of relief we hear comes from Carl Rove. Anything can occur between now and next November but on balance Bush must feel he's turned a corner. Political landmines strewn his path, no question, but his campaign now becomes more manageable. The job loss has been horrendous (trust me, I know) but the economy improves and the spike in the stock market doesn't hurt. Osama is another matter. I can't make up my mind about possible connections between Irag and 9/11. Obviously, we have no hard evidence of anything but didn't Atta train in northern Iraq? The next few months will be very interesting.

[still life]

Of course the world is relieved that Saddam Hussein has been captured. Unfortunately, thousands of dead Iraqis have to be walked over to see the victory. I can't help thinking that it must have been possible to capture and try Saddam Hussein, without the deaths and maimings of innocent Iraqis, wholesale destruction of Iraq not to mention the deaths of the soldiers sent on this illegal war.

The international enemy is terrorism, not one man. Osama bin Laden was the catalyst for the invasion of Iraq and he is still at large.
Would it were so easy to win peace, in the Middle East, or indeed in the world.
I fear, I think logically, that terrorism is not so easily put down with the capture of one man, which is more about symbolism than the immediate ceasing of the other, totally unrelated to Iraq terrorism in the global picture.

[jazzbluescat]

A momentous occasion! I'm glad they got his sorry ass, if for no other reason but for the way he jerked us around with the WMD inspections. Now, maybe more of the population will be unafraid and support peace and rebuilding.

What kinda rubs me the wrong way is that the real motivating factor for our being there is oil, IMHO. Now it's time for Haliburton and Cheney to get to it.

[Fran]

Originally posted by Chris A
Great for the Iraqi people, but I'm afraid the mess in Iraq is not untangled by the capture of Saddam.

I would feel better if we had captured the man who really poses a threat to us, Osama bin Laden.

If this capture helps get Bush elected, then its positive aspects may well be outweighed by the negative. Bush started this ongoing mess for reasons that have little to do with the stated ones. In 2004, we need to cleanse ourselves of this court-appointed thug and his gang.

Amen

[shawn·m]

Let’s see. On a farm? In a “spider” hole? Jeez, and I was already uncomfortable around outhouses.

[Saundra Hummer]

Valid points by everyone here!

I feel that besides the oil, the Govt. feels that they need a permanant base in the area. The Saudi's aren't so hot about letting us use their country as a base of operations, nor are any other countries in the area. Not even Turkey, a long standing friend.

I feel that this was the driving force behind our invasion of Iraq, not that there were WMD, or terrorists in their midst. There certainly are now however.

With the strategic location of Iraq, we would be able to protect what the government feels are our interests in the whole of that area. There are fears of problems with China, Russia, etc. Iraq is ideally located to help with the military readiness of our aircraft, our battleships, our aircraft carriers, etc.

They will be able to ask for, and get concessions that will ensure this when they negotiate for the handing over of control of the country to the Iraqi's, because if they aren't insured that there will be bases for us to use, oil for us to buy, etc., the day won't be coming soon for Iraqi independence. Not that they also didn't see and want an oportunity to line the pockets of the compainies that are able to profit from going in without competive bidding, the proverbial "Carpet Baggers."

[jazzbluescat]

........."Carpet Baggers."

Good call. :D

[gregk]

Originally posted by Chris A
Correction: I said "if Bush gets re-elected," but that is of course wrong, because he has never actually been elected to the presidency.

I will correct my original post.

Chris, perhaps you need to be refreshed on how the electoral college works. The official record shows Bush won the electoral votes needed to become president, didn't he? When are we going to give up this whining, anyway? Maybe if Gore wasn't such a bonehead and won his own damn state we wouldn't have to hear crap like this!

[gregk]

Originally posted by Chris A
Correction: I said "if Bush gets re-elected," but that is of course wrong, because he has never actually been elected to the presidency.

I will correct my original post.

Chris, perhaps you need to be refreshed on how the electoral college works. The official record shows Bush won the electoral votes needed to become president, didn't he? When are we going to give up this whining, anyway? Maybe if Gore wasn't such a bonehead and won his own damn state we wouldn't have to hear crap like this!

[Alexander]

Yes, and a fearsome tyrant he was in the end, wasn't he? Homeless, crazy, and living in a hole in the ground. My God, imagine what he might have done if he hadn't been captured! He might have started panhandling down at the bus station!


Have you read the transcripts of his interrogation? He's a crazy old man. Without his thugs, he's not very dangerous at all. I can see the headlines now: "U.S. Army Captures Harmless Old Man: We Can All Sleep Easy Tonight!"

[joefont]

Originally posted by Chris A
...can you tell me why--if your claim that Bush won the electoral votes is true--it was deemed necessary to have the Supreme Court make the final decision?

It may be "crap" to you. but Bush was not elected--get used to it! :cool:

Ooooooh Nooooo! Not this again!!!

Question Presented to the Supreme Court
Did the Florida Supreme Court violate the U.S. Constitution by making new election law?

Conclusion
The recount scheme was unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court's decision in essence made new election law, which only the state legislature may do.

It's no more complicated than that. Oh yeah, and every independent recount following the election showed Bush won every county in question. The end. Try living in the present!

[joefont]

Originally posted by gregk
Chris....When are we going to give up this whining, anyway?

Increasingly, whining is all they have left!

[solarjazzband]

Of course I'm glad that Saddam can't control his country in that awful way anymore. But what did Sadam exactly did wrong to the Americans? So why would America wants so bad to capture him? Not only for freedom in "some country in the middle-east" I guess...

But now America is going to lead the country, so it's going to be American-like. But is that what the Iraqi's want? It's good that they captured Sadam, because of course I'm also convinced that an American government is better than Sadam killing his own people. But still I think that America sould leave Iraq, and really finish the 'operation Freedom'. So that means only capturing Saddam, and than give hands to the Iraqi's themselves. That's what that freedom promise must be like, not?

And also, a lot of people (more than Saddam would have killed I guess), are killed by that war that the Americans (yeah, Blair too) started. But sure, the result is that the tyrant is away...

[Noj]

I don't see why capturing Saddam would "guarantee" another 4 years of Bush. He sure as hell won't get my vote. I don't care if they catch Bin Laden next week, I still wouldn't vote Republican. Never have, never will.

C'mon Americans, let's get out votes together and teach these overconfident conservatives a lesson.

The electoral college is the only thing that keeps America from being a true democracy. It is elitist, and should be eliminated.

[joefont]

Originally posted by Noj
I still wouldn't vote Republican. Never have, never will.

The electoral college is the only thing that keeps America from being a true democracy. It is elitist, and should be eliminated.

The country is swinging to the right; be careful what you wish for!

[Noj]

Originally posted by joefont
The country is swinging to the right; be careful what you wish for!

The electoral college sure didn't help enforce the will of the people in the last election.

[Saundra Hummer]

I really don't see the capturing of Saddam as a Bush thing, unless you take into account that it is he who started this war with Saddam.

It was the army's good works that caught him, not one politician was along. Sure they were following orders, but to have this occurance make people want to vote for George W. Bush, why would that be?

It is he and his administration that are trying to do away with the Veterens Administration Hospitals, cut our service mens pay, extend their tours of duty, need we know more? Comeon people, we believe what we want to believe, and if we fall for this ploy, then we truly deserve who and what we get.

[BFrank]

When are we gonna catch THIS fugitive? He's been "on the lam" for about 3 years now.

+++

NY Times
December 15, 2003
WHITE HOUSE LETTER
After Cheney's Private Hunt, Others Take Their Shots
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON
Vice President Dick Cheney's Christmas card arrived in the capital's mailboxes last week with this suddenly apt quotation from Benjamin Franklin: "And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?"

Franklin made the remark at the 1787 Constitutional Convention to argue that because something as small as a sparrow's death comes to God's attention, clearly God has a voice in the affairs of men. Therefore, Franklin argued, a prayer should open the daily sessions held to write the founding document of the United States. (Franklin lost the argument, but his passage won a place in history.)

All of which brings us to Mr. Cheney's bird-hunting trip at the exclusive Rolling Rock Club in the hills of southwestern Pennsylvania last Monday, when he and nine others in his party shot some 400 out of 500 pen-raised pheasants released for the morning hunt. No one might have noticed the episode if The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette had not reported it, including the detail that the vice president had shot more than 70 of the ring-necked pheasants himself.

As a result, a lot of other people noticed the fallen birds: hunters who pursue birds in the wild, the Democratic presidential candidates and the Humane Society of the United States, which likened the shootings to the first day of the Iraq war.

"This can only be called a shooting-gallery operation," said Wayne Pacelle, the senior vice president of the Humane Society, who pronounced himself outraged. "Hunting is supposed to involve some opportunity for the animal to evade the hunter. Hunting in this setting is reduced to mass killing."

Mr. Cheney, who almost never speaks to the news media, had no comment on his trip or the identity of his hunting companions, and his office provided only sparse information. White House officials also declined to release photographs they have of the vice president in full hunting mode. But the vice president's spokesman, Kevin Kellems, did say that the pheasants were cleaned, packed and sent to those less fortunate.

"The birds don't go to waste, they go to hunger relief charities," Mr. Kellems said.

Mr. Kellems, however, said he could not provide the names or locations of any charities or soup kitchens that received the birds and did not know how they were prepared, when they were served and who in fact ate them. (Pheasant under glass was an aristocratic dish of an earlier era; today's pheasant aficionados say the birds are delicious, although bony, and can be tough if improperly cooked.)

Details of the exact nature of the hunt were also hard to come by. Officers at the private Rolling Rock Club, which meanders over 10,000 acres in Ligonier Township about a 90-minute drive from Pittsburgh, did not return numerous calls seeking comment. Employees reached in the club's dog kennels said they had been ordered not to speak to the news media. The employees added that they did not know what had become of Scott Wakefield, a dog handler at the club who was quoted by The Post-Gazette as saying that 500 birds had been released from nets for the hunt.

If nets were used, bird-hunting experts said, Mr. Cheney and his party were probably prepositioned with shotguns on the ground or in blinds in trees. Another possibility was that the birds were released from a tower, with Mr. Cheney and the others ready for them on the ground. A final possibility was that the pheasants were released early in the day or the night before, and Mr. Cheney and his companions then went after them on foot.

Whatever the case, hunters generally do not embrace any form of the practice as a substitute for the real thing.

"I don't see anything terribly wrong with it, but I don't think it should be confused with hunting," said Sid Evans, editor in chief of the outdoor magazine Field & Stream. Shooting pen-raised birds, he said, "is a great way to train dogs, and it's a great way to educate young hunters."

Mr. Cheney often hunts in the wild, and his office would not discuss how frequently he shoots pen-raised birds at private clubs. The Post-Gazette reported, however, that Monday's trip was the second time Mr. Cheney had visited Rolling Rock. The newspaper also said Mr. Cheney had spent Monday afternoon at the club shooting an undetermined number of mallard ducks.

In October, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, a Democratic presidential candidate, blew two pheasants out of the Iowa sky in two shots of his 12-gauge shotgun, a display meant to show his prowess as well as his support for the rights of hunters and an assault-weapons ban. Mr. Kerry downed the birds in a cornfield, not at a private club.

"Something here doesn't add up," said David Wade, Mr. Kerry's spokesman. "The Bush administration says the economy is improving, but their millionaire vice president has to hunt for his own food."

[Grub]

Let it not be forgotten that Saddam wouldn't have been able to do what he did were it not for the likes of the US, French and UK governments supporting the arms trade with his regime. The likes of Thatcher, Bush snr, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Chirac are as complicit as the criminals who are flooding streets in Western cities with handguns.

[solarjazzband]

America wants to bring democracy to Iraq. But that means that the all Iraqi people are allowed to decide what is going to happen with there country.

[a.j. zeitlin]

Like it or not Bush (who DID get beaten by Gore!) will get the credit for bagging Sadam and come November it'll probably translate into additional votes.

[3pointdeli]

of course it will bring more votes for bush, unfortunately.

[Andy D]

Yeh great news only another 100 or so dictators to go, wonder which one GW will go after next? What about the crazy guy in North Korea? or how about the Despot in Zimbabwe? Nope somehow I do not think he will go after any of those dictators and murders of 'their' people who steal their countries wealth etc

Let us hope we can now find the weapons of mass destruction that started the whole thing, we are sure to find them now right? After all GW and Tony said they had evidence;)

Regards

Andy D.

[marvin g]

Originally posted by Chris A. I would feel better if we had captured the man who really poses a threat to us, Osama bin Laden.

I agree!! That's where all the man power and money should have went to instead of fight his daddy's foes!

[Spike]

Originally posted by marvin g
Originally posted by Chris A.

I agree!! That's where all the man power and money should have went to instead of fight his daddy's foes!

I wish more people would understand the point made in these last two posts. Saddam was not responsible for 9/11 and had no capacity to directly threaten the security of US citizens on US soil. Osama bin Laden WAS responsible for 9/11, remains a threat, and remains at large. The whole Iraq invasion has been a hugely expensive diversion of effort away from the need for a well-focused War on Terror designed to eliminate al Qaeda.

Why don't people get this?

Spike

[Saundra Hummer]

Originally posted by Spike
I wish more people would understand the point made in these last two posts. Saddam was not responsible for 9/11 and had no capacity to directly threaten the security of US citizens on US soil. Osama bin Laden WAS responsible for 9/11, remains a threat, and remains at large. The whole Iraq invasion has been a hugely expensive diversion of effort away from the need for a well-focused War on Terror designed to eliminate al Qaeda.

Why don't people get this?

Spike

Spike, we get it, we really do! It is just that we aren't the power in charge of what evil it is we want to attack next, we have no say, & we won't have a say if so many people continue to fall for the other ploys that remove the focus off of the real problem, the barbarians at our gates!

We know full well which man is the most dangerous, which man has cost us our security, it certainly wasn't Saddam, We also know that there are far more dangerous men out there, far more dangerous idiology's out there, but it a snowball rolling down hill, it is just growing in size, and the threat they pose is becoming something we really have no control over, it has been allowed to go on too long, not enough diplomacy, not enough looking at the root causes and putting our all into trying to solve the problems in their earliest stages. Too long a holdover of the politics of what we used to call Banana Boat Diplomacy, that type of mentality. There are very few countries that we actually wanted to see become selfsufficient, we seemed to have a need to have them dependent on us, and it has come back to haunt us. We have now become too dependent on them and they are sick and tired of us.

[solarjazzband]

Exactly !!! It's so totally strange that Bush is only focussing on Saddam !! It's really weird...

If my neighbour would beat my brother yesterday, I wouldn't go to my other neighbour and beat him back because he once, long ago, said something bad to me!?!? No he's not important at the moment!

Why would Bush take just one of the thousand other dictators? Why just him? Even when Bin Laden just attacked a very important buildig!? I would be afraid if I was an American... First capture the one who attacked your country, than look after others.

And, I'm sure almost everybody knows this, but for some reason, the media doesn't give attention to it. It's so strange.

[Andy D]

No one doubts that Saddam was a 'bad guy' but as worse as any other? You pose some good questions Solar, that in all the hype are rarely asked. We went to war on the basis of the so called weapons of mass destruction, on the so called support for international terror.

So no weapons found and no proved link with Osama or anyone else for that matter. The almost total focus on Saddam allows people to ignore the dictators in the world that may actually pose a threat, or that we support for various strategic or economic reasons.

Of course in reality Saddam was an easy target, much more difficult to take on the North Koreans, because they really do have some useful weapons, and they are close to the South with it's close links with the West. We can ignore China which has a very abusive human rights policy, because we need the money and they have some useful weapons. We can even ignore all the other dictators in the Middle East, like in Saudi Arabia, an even worse example of a country with few human rights and so and so on.

Yep 'we got him' alright and we can all sleep in our beds tonight because he really threatened the world right?;)

Regards

Andy D.

[It Should be You]

Under the Geneva Convention, it is against international law to hold a prisoner of war up to public humiliation or to public curiosity. Haven't we done that already? Is the U.S. government responsible for restraining the images our media is showing? Yeah, I know. Since when are we caring about international law or opinion? We're trying to shape it, right?

I am glad they caught him but why did we go in without international support? What is the exit strategy?

On the other hand, I cannot agree with people who say Where are the weapons of mass destruction? We gave him quite a head start for hiding or destroying them with all those silly "30 more days" pronouncements before the war.

Who is advising the president? Should he have smirked "I find it interesting that he was hiding in a hole" or something to that effect?

This will make no sense at all to some people, I know in advance. Well, sorry if I make you mad but I am mad too!

:mad2:

[John L]

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:11:03 -0800



President Anan Addresses Nation on the Capture of George W. Bush
Remarks by the President on the Capture of George W. Bush
The Cabinet Room

12:15 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Yesterday, December the 13th, at around 8:30 p.m. Washington time, United Nations military forces captured George W. Bush alive. He was found near a farmhouse outside the city of Crawford, in a swift raid conducted without casualties. And now the former dictator of America will face the justice he denied to millions.

The capture of this man was crucial to the rise of a free America. It marks the end of the road for him, and for all who bullied
and killed in his name. For the Republican Party holdouts largely
responsible for the current violence, there will be no return to
the corrupt power and privilege they once held. For the vast majority of American citizens who wish to live as free men and
women, this event brings further assurance that the torture chambers and the secret police are gone forever.

And this afternoon, I have a message for the American people: You will not have to fear the rule of George W. bush ever
again. All Americans who take the side of freedom have taken the winning side. The goals of our coalition are the same as
your goals -- sovereignty for your country, dignity for your great
culture, and for every American citizen, the opportunity for a
better life.

In the history of the United States, a dark and painful era is over. A hopeful day has arrived. All Americans can now come together and reject violence and build a new America.

[Andy D]

You know even the people who are looking for the weapons are now saying it was all just bluff, you can destroy some weapons, but chemical weapons are very difficult, if not impossible to hide, they just show up one way or the other.

Well you had some international support, our guys went in, as did the Spanish, the Poles and a few others, just that we had no mandate to do so. The UN said no, the reasons why we went to war have proven not proven, and so it was an illegal occupation but hey since when has that ever bothered the US or the UK?

Saddam was a man who killed many of his own people, used his nations wealth for his own ends and so on, but and here is the rub - there has been no connection between him and Osama, no proof that he had the weapons that Tony Blair said would potentially destroy the world and so on.

What GW and the boys did, was seek revenge, target a country that was no real threat, that was an easy target, that posed no threat to world peace, well at least far less that those nasty Koreans or India and Pakistan, that has strategic importance and justified this with spin and lies. The 'boys' ignored the UN and did what they did anyway.

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

Revenge, monitary reasons, base seeking, oil seeking, and getting a country in the area we can control once more????? Could this be it in a nutshell?

I do believe that a small part of their thinking is that they would like for democracy to plant a small seed there, but how unrealistic is this, as they don't quite understand the concept, shoot, we still have problems with it here in our own countries, like here, look at the processes that John Ashcroft is trying to implement, at the orders of the higherups in the administration I might add.

[Andy D]

Sandi.

No never it was all about saving the world from a guy that threatened to destroy us all. A guy who's techonology was so advanced that he could 'shoot' chemicals all the way to London and beyond. A guy who was involved in just about every terror attack from the mountains of Peru to the African Jungle.

The Oil had nothing to with it, why would the US need to maintain it's supply of Oil, when is consumes so much of the World's resources and is responsible for much of it's pollution?

And I cannot agree with you about 'strategic' position, why would the US want to have a place in the Middle East? Afterall it has brought so much peace to the region, just look at how it stays neutral in the various conflicts. If you suggest that this is about Oil or even worse colonialism, then you are very wrong and should be made to account for you thoughts and ideas:wink2:

Regards

Andy D.

[Andy D]

Yes the seeds of democracy.

Who's democracy?

A democracy that exploits it's own people, that has wide disparities between various groups, that has corrupt officials, that 'rigs' elections, that abuses human rights, that sends people to their death by electric chair or chemicals etc

Which country are we talking about?

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

Hi Andy!

Do you mean our countries, or me! Ha!

Gladly, I'll stand accountable for my words and ideas, after all, that is all they are, but our governments need to do the same.

I really do believe they want a permanant base in the region, they are tired of begging for the rights to fly over or even land in our friends countries when we are in a conflict. If they had a permanant base, that is one problem that would be solved.


Tongue in cheek about the oil and revenge? Sure we want all we can get on both issues.

We , our governments, therefore the collective "We," do want other countries to become democratic, but I still think it is a hard road to hoe! The concept is just too alien to them. Look at Russia, and the centuries of empirical rule, how can they truly understand and implement a democratic government, and then there is China, and how about the countries in Africa, the concept there is tribal, and most tribes didn't live democratically, and they certainly didn't under colonial rule, so now we expect them to adapt to our way of thinking almost overnight, just not going to happen.

[Spike]

Originally posted by solarjazzband
Exactly !!! It's so totally strange that Bush is only focussing on Saddam !! It's really weird...


Here's my theory:

1) There were some neo-cons at the US Department of Defense that have wanted to overthrow Saddam since '91 for reasons that only they fully understand;

2) In the wake of 9/11, George W. mentioned Osama bin Laden about every 15 minutes; issuing "gonna get him dead or alive" pronouncements, etc. His poll numbers went through the roof. But then bin Laden slipped through our fingers in Afghanistan and went into hiding somewhere in Pakistan. The odds on finding him were like a needle in a haystack. It was time to change the subject before the American people started asking why.

3) So the neo-cons at DoD go to Karl Rove at the White House. "Have we gotta deal for you. Let's drum up some phony charges about WMD and links to al Qaeda in Iraq. It won't be hard to demonize Saddam, because he is, in fact, a demon. If we orchestrate a wag the dog campaign to invade Iraq, George W. will never have to say bin Laden again."

4) Karl Rove was instantly intrigued because he knew the American people would rally around the flag in a national emergency. That would ensure that George's poll numbers stayed high. But he had only one concern. The whole thing had to be wrapped up by Nov 2003 so George W would have a full year to bask in the glow of his great military victory over a fourth rate power with no air force. So he told them: "OK do it. Let's invade. But we've got to have a "Mission Accomplished" banner flying by May 1 to protect George's poll numbers. And Iraq has to be rebuilt by November. Can you do it?"

5) This tight deadline made the neo-cons a bit nervous. This timeline didn't provide any time to create an international coalition in support of the war. It also didn't provide any time for post-war planning. It could be a real mess. But they had wanted to invade Baghdad since '91. They weren't gonna let a few details stand it the way. After all, Blair would go along with anything they wanted to do; they could get a few Poles and Spaniards and pretend that was a big international coalition. And they'd throw together some kind of rebuilding strategy on the way into Baghdad. What the hell? "Sure, Karl, we can do it! Let's go!"

6) And the rest, as they say, is history... :)

Spike

[Saundra Hummer]

Wow!

We're all right!

Now if someone would just realize it!

[solarjazzband]

We sould publish this thread to the world :)

[Andy D]

Good analysis still does not explain why we in the UK, well at least our government supported the whole thing? It surprised many that Tony Blair went against the UN and threw his hat into the ring with GW.

Some say it was about good old christian values of right and wrong, seems a little misguided, when we can't even sort out a problem of our own making in places like Zimbabwe for example. To here the way TB talks about Saddam makes one feel that there are no other dictators.

Saddam was no threat to the UK what so ever, and of all the World's leaders TB was the most focused on the weapons issue. So now we have no weapons, despite the best efforts and all the techonology and TB is 'praying' that Saddam tells us something about the weapons.

Mean while the other tyrants in the Middle East, in Africa, in Asia and in Europe carry on with the regimes, but hey we are exporting 'democracy' to the people that really want it right?

Regards

Andy D.

[solarjazzband]

In holland here, it's often said that "Tony Blair is always going after Bush, or whatever US president"... "He's always licking Bush's boots" Bush says something, the English president says the same etc....

[Saundra Hummer]

Originally posted by Chris A
http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL54/965874/3155343/40526852.jpg

JeezE!!!!!!

Still laughing! We're that hopeless???

Maybe they could straighten us all out? Think there's a chance?

Really!!!!

Too funny!!!!!

[Spike]

Originally posted by Andy D
...does not explain why we in the UK, well at least our government supported the whole thing? It surprised many that Tony Blair went against the UN and threw his hat into the ring with GW.

Margaret Thatcher stood firm next to Bush the Elder against Saddam during the Gulf War. Do you think Blair and/or his image makers wanted to make sure that he didn't look like a wimp in comparison to Thatcher's testosterone-driven performance?

Spike

[Tenorman]

Back-pedal a bit guys.

What was paraded before the cameras was a sad (and apparently foul mouthed) filthy old man who has been hiding in hovels for quite a long time, judging by the length of that hair and beard.

There has been concerted attacks on (mainly) US forces around Baghdad and Tikrit for quite some time now. Someone is organising it. It pretty obviously wasn't Saddam.

This suggests to me that Saddam was not the power in Iraq, but only a mad figurehead who was thrown away as soon as his usefulness was over.

I would suggest that the real rulers of Iraq are still to be found

[Saundra Hummer]

Originally posted by Tenorman
Back-pedal a bit guys.

What was paraded before the cameras was a sad (and apparently foul mouthed) filthy old man who has been hiding in hovels for quite a long time, judging by the length of that hair and beard.

There has been concerted attacks on (mainly) US forces around Baghdad and Tikrit for quite some time now. Someone is organising it. It pretty obviously wasn't Saddam.

This suggests to me that Saddam was not the power in Iraq, but only a mad figurehead who was thrown away as soon as his usefulness was over.

I would suggest that the real rulers of Iraq are still to be found

Interesting theory!

You know they say, even with all of his palaces, and homes, he very seldom ever slept in them, even before the war, they say he prefered sleeping out in the country, even in Bedouin tents, that he didn't like being in a house or a palace, but I am sure he didn't like being in a hole in the ground either, but you would think he could have glorified it a little, our leaders have elaborate bunkers built for them, one would have thought that he would have had the same?

[Andy D]

It is ironic that TB resembles Margaret Thatcher in very many ways. He sees the War as a defining moment, as she did with the Falklands. He has had some indifference for the 'public sector' and has refused to look at the tax issue.

So yes I think that part of it is to leave something for history to look back on, and say he was a great president, sorry I meant Prime Minister :wink2:

Regards

Andy D.

[still life]

Was it Margaret Thatcher, or Golda Miaer who was once described as "the only one in the room with balls", at a meeting of world leaders, some years ago?? I think it was Thatcher.
Tony Blair has big shoes to fill, if he is trying to emulate Ms Thatcher, I think.

[Tenorman]

Originally posted by Saundra Hummer
Interesting theory!

You know they say, even with all of his palaces, and homes, he very seldom ever slept in them, even before the war, they say he prefered sleeping out in the country, even in Bedouin tents, that he didn't like being in a house or a palace, but I am sure he didn't like being in a hole in the ground either, but you would think he could have glorified it a little, our leaders have elaborate bunkers built for them, one would have thought that he would have had the same?

I think that is Colonel Gadaffi you are thinking about. He often has a bedouin tent set up for him. Iraq is a bit too far North for Bedouins.

IMHO It was a set up job. They sacrificed him to get the reward money and re-arm themselves.

[joefont]

Originally posted by Tenorman
I think that is Colonel Gadaffi you are thinking about.

Speaking of Gadaffi.......

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20031219/ap_on_re_af/britain_libya_weapons_7

[Andy D]

Thatcher had little time for domestic issues, prefering instead to concentrate on the world stage. In the end this was one of the things that led to her defeat. What TB seems to have forgotton is that democratic principles, can be faught for at home and not just on some foreign lands.

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

Originally posted by Tenorman
I think that is Colonel Gadaffi you are thinking about. He often has a bedouin tent set up for him. Iraq is a bit too far North for Bedouins.

IMHO It was a set up job. They sacrificed him to get the reward money and re-arm themselves.

No, he did the same, they say he didn't like the big palaces at all, he just liked to build them! Go figure!

For one thing, he feared assassinaton so much that he slept in different locations everynight, and then not for long periods of time, only 4 hours or so in one spot, moving on to another site after a few hours sleep. He prefered small houses, and the bedouin camps to his own palaces, even before the war.


You would have thought that he would have seen the handwrting on the wall, to be in such fear for your life, all because of your sadistic bent.

[Andy D]

Well on the subject of the 'Colonel' I see that Gadaffi has been 'won' over by TB and GW as he anounced, that he has weapons of mass destruction, but that he is now going to destroy them and has asked the US and the UK to help him do this.

Interesting;)

Regards

Andy D.

[still life]

Originally posted by Andy D
Well on the subject of the 'Colonel' I see that Gadaffi has been 'won' over by TB and GW as he anounced, that he has weapons of mass destruction, but that he is now going to destroy them and has asked the US and the UK to help him do this.

Interesting;)

Regards

Andy D.

Can't help being a little skeptical. I suppose that that is his "pre-emptive action".

Can't help wondering when Mr Bush will allow international inspectors to search for "nucular" weapons of mass destruction in the U.S.

I think though that the downfall in the West will eventually be economic, which I think was the point that the Sept 11 terrorists were making by destroying what they saw as a symbol of international commerce.
I think that is the point that many who resent what they see as the Western dominance of the world, ecnomically are making. Much of this superiority has been won at the expense of abjectly poor nations.
IMO, it was only a matter of time before the rest of the world caught us and surpassed us in education and technical experstise.
Those who have depended on us, by emigrating, for education and jobs, now have begun to educate their own people and do our high-end jobs, for less money, on the other side of the world. Quite often they work for Western Companies who have outsourced the jobs that used to be here.
They will not kill us by war. They will kill our economy, much more devastating I think.
For years I have been boring people by wondering out loud when we will realize that killing people in wars has not brought peace, for thousands of years. I think that killing economies is the new frontier. It's not even necessary to put on a uniform and carry a gun to do that.
If I am right, it would bring new meaning to the phrase, "Bloodless Coup".

[Andy D]

Well I guess Gadaffi may not want to end up like Saddam, and Lybia is not the totally repressive state that the US and the UK say that it is. I agree that the 'west' is indeed in danger of ecomomic collapse, Micheal Porter the Harvard Economist has suggested as much. The infastructure is simply not equiped to sustain the economy.

Add to this the rise of countries like China, as an economic superpower, and you can see why the US is so much against freetrade and a strong European economic union.

Regards

Andy D.