# Everything's cool, Saddam's been arrested. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 14, 2003, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934 "2003-12-14T12:07:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2003, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934/381 "2003-12-25T13:08:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*Give my regards to the cabal. \*\* Give my regards to your therapist. What happened to the original assertion: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Scylla_ > **For a while I know for a fact that they were planning it and doing it deliberately, because the ringleader made the mistake of emailing my brother (who is somewhat liberal and was disagreeing with me heatedly) and attempted to enlist him. I told him to play along for a while, so I knew what the score was. Now I think they just do it out of grudge-bearing or force of habit. It all goes back to one person, and one conflict, though.** This should be pretty easy for you to prove. What’s your brother’s username, what was the email address of the person who emailed him, and what did the email say? Who was the one person, and what was the one conflict? Was any of what you posted in the above quote true? Just the usual lies, I think, though I’d be happy to be proven wrong. As it stands, you’ve tried to weasel the level of conspiracy down to something like “people on this message board are communicating with each other by posting on this message board, and they cooperate with each other in taking a position adverse to mine” Prove the original assertion or fuck off. [Wanker](http://www.timewarptoys.com/61troll.jpg). ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2003, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934/382 "2003-12-25T18:25:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Uzi \* > \*\*A stable country where the citizens feel like they have a say creates terrorists? Uh, no. There is no fantasy in that. > Now if you are saying that the expectation of Iraq turning into a vibrant democracy is unrealistic, I’d have to say you have a good chance of being correct. We can only hope that you aren’t. \*\* AFAIK, there isn’t a single known Iraqi member in Al-Qaeda. Iraq emerging as a vibrant democracy has nothing to do with terrorism as there was little Al-Qaeda membership in Iraq to begin with. The fantasy , IMHO, is to expect some sort of force emerging from Iraq and cascading through the Mid-East creating prosperous democratic nations and removing the incentives for terrorism. I think the US could have better utilized the dollars and resources right now tied in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2003, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934/383 "2003-12-25T20:53:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Desmostylus \* > \*\* > [Wanker](http://www.timewarptoys.com/61troll.jpg). \*\* Well, your self-portrait is scary. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2003, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934/384 "2003-12-25T22:33:36Z")
You know, you Brits and Aussies (pretty much the same thing, right?) lingo is a bit daunting. I don’t think I’ve got a real grip on this whole “wanker” thing.snicker Is a wanker a troll? Are all trolls wankers, that is, are they mutually inclusive sets? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2003, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934/385 "2003-12-25T23:24:30Z")
Yeah, like Yankees and Southerners. Wanker is hard to define but perhaps means: “jerk who has an unjustified sense of self-importance” ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934/386 "2003-12-26T03:34:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by litost \* > \*\*AFAIK, there isn’t a single known Iraqi member in Al-Qaeda. Iraq emerging as a vibrant democracy has nothing to do with terrorism as there was little Al-Qaeda membership in Iraq to begin with. \*\* Terrorists aren’t confined to the group Al-Qaeda. If you destroyed that group completely another would take its place and then you’d have to deal with that one, too. If you don’t take away the underlying reason that these groups exist they will always be there. \*\* > [@](#): > > The fantasy , IMHO, is to expect some sort of force emerging from Iraq and cascading through the Mid-East creating prosperous democratic nations and removing the incentives for terrorism. > \*\* I fly between the UAE and Yemen regularly. In Yemen the women are completely covered. When they get off the plane in Dubai about half have lost their coverings. Eventually they won’t be putting them back on again when they return to Yemen. What else are they doing when they are out of Yemen? Maybe seeing that in addition to having more freedom, people have more prosperity? Maybe it goes hand in hand? It is just a matter of time and the influence of more liberal societies before things will change. A stable, prosperous Iraq would definitly influence its neighbours. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934/387 "2003-12-26T09:26:00Z")
Sure, but is “Shit! There are 150,000 war-crazed Americans next door! We better beef up our own stockpiles!” really the kind of influence we want? ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934/388 "2003-12-26T17:48:08Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Uzi \* **If you don’t take away the underlying reason that these groups exist they will always be there.** [quote] Wasn’t the underlying reason “penis envy”? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934/389 "2003-12-26T18:02:49Z")
That’s actually a misnomer, **Global Gobbler**. It’s not “penis envy” (the laughable presumption that females must necessarily admire and envy the possession of a 2nd, entirely unreliable, brain) but “penis _shame_” the motivates us so encumbered, that we seek constantly to find a warm, damp place to hide it. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2004, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934/390 "2004-01-16T06:22:44Z")
**Scylla** (if you’re still out there): My only comment regarding what you’ve written regarding the Israeli/Palestine conflict is that your employment of the “Big Dawg” principle appears to be extremely flexible. But let’s leave that discussion to the side for the time being, and focus on the issue of Iraq and terrorism. > [@](#): > > - You’re getting histrionic. This is what I mean by seeming to defend Saddam as an innocent. The guy declared his side against us, and has been a major pain in the ass in so many different ways, any of which by itself is cause for regime change. This is not a case of simple disagreement. This is one of the worst dictators who is our declared enemy in a very sensitive and volatile part of the world, a part of the world that is a hotbed of terrorism. He has attacked his neighbors, repressed his own people, used chemical weapons, tortured, and repeatedly shown that he is not interested in peace.\* Let’s go through these claims one by one. 1. “_I ( **Mr. Svinlesha** ) am getting histrionic_.” I am not. 1. I seem to defend Saddam as an innocent. He is guilty of the following: 2a) “_Declaring his side against us, and being a major pain in the ass in many ways_.” The US and Iraq fell into an adversarial relationship for various historical reasons. But since the 1991 cease-fire Hussein never declared war on the United States or threatened it in any serious manner (other than, possibly, in rhetorical political speech). If adversarial relationships are the basis for the right to execute regime change in other nations, then Saddam would be well within his rights to invade the US and instigate a regime change for exactly the same reasons the US did it to Iraq. In the same manner, one could say that the Kuwaiti government, with its covert support for slant drilling into Iraqi oil reserves, had made itself a “major pain in the ass” to Hussein’s regime, thus granting him the legal right to invade Kuwait and execute a regime change – thereby leading us to the inevitable conclusion that Gulf War I was an illegitimate military exercise. All of this follows logically if one believes in the rule of law and in the equality of states within the international system. If the US does stand for these values, as it claims to, then obviously it cannot reserve for itself the right to act in ways that are prohibited to other states. This thereby grants other states the legitimate right under international praxis to also engage in “preventative wars” as an exercise of sovereign privilege, if we claim this right for ourselves. Thus, to take a couple of examples, if the reasons you provide for the invasion of Iraq are to be considered legitimate, then we have no recourse but to stand by and allow China to retake Taiwan, which has been a threat to its security and a “major pain in its ass” for more than half a century now. (In fact, we should join a “coalition of the willing” to help China do so). The Russian invasion of Afghanistan can also be justified on this basis. South Korea is the “declared enemy” of North Korea, and a serious “pain in its ass;” therefore, North Korea has a legitimate right to instigate regime change in South Korea. Perhaps you see that this principle can only lead to total international chaos. 2b) “_Saddam is one of the worst dictators in a volatile part of the world_.” Indeed he was. But was he a direct or impending threat to the US, such that we were required to respond to him with an essentially unilateral invasion? This question goes to the heart of how one views the role of the US military. Personally, I’ve always thought that the US military was fairly limited in scope, created exclusively to defend US territory from foreign aggressors. 2c) “_He attacked his neighbors_.” Indeed, he did, twice. Ironically, in the first of those “attacks” he had the full support of the US. The US government was _glad_ he attacked his neighbor then (Iran), and even provided him with the material wherewithal to do so. But now, afterwards, we suddenly turn around and count that act against him. Frailty, thy name is America! It’s also true that he attacked Kuwait; but for me, what is most significant is what he _did not_ do: i.e., he did not attack the United States. And it seems to me that this act alone – armed attack against the territorial integrity of the US – is the only legitimate grounds for the unilateral employment of US military forces, but maybe I’m just old-fashioned. Nevertheless, it must be rather inconvenient for your argument that the US has actually signed international commitments to the effect that it will not engage in the “threat or use of force” in it relations with other states, except when it is itself under attack. See the UN Charter for references. 2d) “_He repressed his own people_.” So did Pinochet, yet in that instance we supported him. So did the Shah of Iran, yet in that instance we supported him. So did Batiste, yet in that instance we supported him. So did Somoza, yet in that instance we supported him. So did Suharto, yet in that instance we supported him. So does Karimov (president of Uzbeckistan), yet in that instance we support him. So does Aristide (president of Haiti), yet in that instance we support him. So did Saddam, yet in that instance we supported him (until recently, that is). So, what was your point, in terms of “Big Dawg” politics, again? 2e) “_He used chemical weapons_.” And yet you’ve conceded that he was no longer a threat on that front, and that the administration lied about those weapons in order to instigate the war. Still, you continue to harp on this point. It is irrelevant, and you’ve admitted it to be so already. 2f) “_He tortured_.” See my list of US allies, above. 2g) “_He repeatedly showed he was not interested in peace_.” On the contrary, in my opinion; he did everything he could short of allowing a full cavity search of his own disgusting personage to achieve peace, at least with the US. His regime was busily disassembly its missiles while the US Army stood ready to attack on its border. He even caved in and allowed UN inspectors to look through his presidential palaces, an act equivalent to the US allowing teams of UN inspectors to roam through the White House and Congress looking for incriminating evidence. But of course, like any national leader, he was interested in peace on his terms. 2h) “_He was a maggot begging to be wiped off the face of the earth_.” You’ve hit the nail on the head. He was a **maggot** , not a threat. We chose to invade Iraq because we knew Iraq was a pushover. And that proved to be the case. How can a country that the US easily overran in the space of two weeks be construed, now, afterwards, as a serious threat to the US? The Hussein regime was so dangerous that it collapsed with scarcely a fight; the US lost less than 200 men taking over an _entire country_. And yet still people are trying to convince me, and themselves, that Hussein’s regime was some sort of deadly threat to America’s future well-being. Such an argument is pathetically silly, a self-contradiction that flies in the face of all reason. > [@](#): > > - What gives us the right is that we have the power. I don’t mean that in a “might means right” kind of way, either. We have both the power and the influence to do it, or not. Either way is a choice. Using our power is an exercise in power. Not doing it is also an exercise in power. We cannot absolve ourselves of the choice by claiming we don’t have the right, because that is in itself making a choice. Not acting is an action with consequences, just as acting is.\* Yes, I agree completely with this. Therefore the US government must weigh the consequences of acting against the consequences of not acting. Considering whether or not it can legitimately claim to have a “right” to invade another country is an important aspect of such a decision-making process, since other states will judge the US on its actions. (Such considerations are, in fact, not unlike considering whether or not one has the right to eat a Popeye’s chicken dinner one happens across on the side of the road while one is out running, for example.) I believe a certain poster of conservative bent started an entire thread on precisely this issue, not long ago, explaining that the core value of the conservative philosophy revolves around something called “the law of unintended consequences.” This poster argued that when the consequences of an action are relatively unforeseeable, then true conservative wisdom suggests that one refrain from acting: the solution may be worse than the problem it was intended to solve. Does that ring any bells for you, friend **Scylla**? If this is indeed the case, then surely only a “liberal” would have supported the invasion of Iraq, fraught as it was (and is) with unforeseeable consequences. > [@](#): > > - I personally think that Libya as a state sponsoring terrorist attacks against us would have been a perfectly reasonable cause for removing the leadership of the country at the time it occured. I find it preferential to trying to bomb and sanction him into submission. If we had done so, we would have removed him as a threat and provided an example to other dictators or rogue nations that might have been of a similar mind. Perhaps if it would have been done, the growth of terrorism might have been stymied. I think it would have.\* Unfortunately, you have little more than speculation, and your own personal beliefs, to support your assertions. You do not even know if removing Qaddafi would have necessarily “removed a threat,” as we do not know how the resultant power vacuum would have been filled. Have you every heard of the “law of unintended consequences,” by the way? However, we can say this now, with confidence; having not invaded Libya, but rather pressuring them economically and diplomatically, has resulted in the elimination of that country as a threat (to the extent that it ever was one); Libya has now publicly announced it will give up its “WMD” programs. > [@](#): > > - You make a good point. It also serves my thesis. If we got that effect from a simple retaliation bombing imagine how much better the world might be if we had really gone after his ass at the time.\* Clearly, you’ve never heard of the “law of unintended consequences.” My point doesn’t support your thesis; it shows that with relatively small means the US can effect large policy shifts in other states. Qaddafi cannot be blamed for the terrorism that he did not sponsor. Regarding my entry into Sweden: > [@](#): > > _Well, they let you in. 😉_ No accounting for taste, I guess. 🙂 You’ve asked for an alternative set of policies to be put forth in the so-called “war on terror.” When I have a spare moment, I’ll try to summarize the alternative promoted by the latest paper from the Army War College, entitled “_Bounding the Global War on Terrorism_.” It’s author makes a number of very important points that we have thus far overlooked in our debate. P.S. Thanks to **Gest** and **KSO** for the correction. I did indeed mean Richard, not Daniel, Pearl. My bad. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2004, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934/391 "2004-01-16T07:34:18Z")
> [@](#): > > …Such considerations are, in fact, not unlike considering whether or not one has the right to eat a Popeye’s chicken dinner one happens across on the side of the road while one is out running, for example… This sentence is appalling. It is an affront to order, the Anti-Christ of syntax, a grammatic gargoyle. Repent! “There is some shit up with which I will not put!” - Winston Churchill _attrib._ ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2004, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934/392 "2004-01-16T08:31:25Z")
Too many clauses? ---
**Author:** ![Gomez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d78d45/32.png) [@Gomez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gomez)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2004, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934/393 "2004-01-16T08:33:02Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Beagle_ > Whatever. You hate Bush. You say that as though it’s a _bad_ thing. Yes, we hate Bush, and we have good reason to. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2004, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934/394 "2004-01-16T08:53:55Z")
…prepositional phrases, I mean. Anyway, I beg to differ. Even granting the excess of modifying prepositions, the sentence is nevertheless syntatically correct. Or have I been abroad too long? ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2004, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934/395 "2004-01-16T12:57:54Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > …Or have I been abroad too long? I’m confused. First you change your username to **Mr.** Svinlesha, now you’re telling us you’ve been a broad in Sweden? (Nice return post, btw.) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2004, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934/396 "2004-01-16T16:16:22Z")
After extensive internet research, I managed to locate your English Comp. teacher. I sent her your sentence. In a fit of despair, she shaved her head and joined Hairy Krishna. Revenge is yours. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2004, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934/397 "2004-01-16T16:37:50Z")
**xeno** : > [@](#): > > - I’m confused. First you change your username to **Mr.** Svinlesha, now you’re telling us you’ve been a broad in Sweden?\* Wow. I’m surprised anyone remembers that particular occurrence of cyber-spatial transgendering. Anyway, in these days of postmodern sexual identity politics the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And in fact, I must admit that I am, really, a woman trapped within a man’s body. Ironically, I also happen to be a lesbian… 😉 > [@](#): > > - (Nice return post, btw.)\* Thanks. Its nice to be back – as long as we can get the _grammar nazi_ off my back, that is. **Scylla** : I realized after I posted that I missed a sentence: > [@](#): > > - We just need to look at state sponsored terrorism as equivalent to an overt military attack and deal with it accordingly.\* To my knowledge, that’s exactly what the US does. As far as I can tell, such a response would also fit under the provision of the UN Charter, Article 51; not that an armed response is totally problem-free, since state-sponsored terrorism is also certainly covert, and the US is thus faced with the rather daunting task of tracing down the covert network and establishing a credible connection between the terrorist act and a given state. The real problem the government faces, however, is how to address terrorism that _isn’t_ state-sponsored, like Al-Queda. But the point is fairly irrelevant regarding Iraq, anyway, since – by your own admission – Iraq has not sponsored any sort of terrorism against the US to begin with. I’m just going to briefly list the policy recommendations at the end of the War College paper as an alternative to your “Big Dawg” approach: > [@](#): > > \*\*The central conclusion of this study is that _the global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly that its parameters should be readjusted to conform to concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American power_. Such a readjustment requires movement from unrealistic to realistic war aims and _from unnecessarily provocative to traditional uses of military force_. Specifically, a realistically bounded GWOT [i.e., Global War on Terrorism] requires the following measures: > > (1) _Deconflate the threat_. This means, in both thought and policy, treating rogue states separately from terrorist organizations, and separating terrorist organizations at war with the United States from those that are not…. > > (2) _Substitute credible deterrence for preventive war as the primary policy for dealing with rogue states seeking to acquire WMD_…. There is no evidence that rogue state use of WMD is undeterrable via credible threats of unacceptable retaliation or that rogue states seek WMD solely for purposes of blackmail and aggression. There is evidence, however, of failed deterrence of rogue state acquisition of WMD; _indeed, there is evidence that a declared policy of preventive war encourages acquisition_. Preventive war in any case alienates friends and allies, leaving the United States isolated and unnecessarily burdened (as in Iraq). > > (3) _Refocus the GWOT first and foremost on al-Qaeda, its allies, and homeland security_. > > (4) _Seek rogue-state regime change via measures short of war_. Forcible regime change of the kind undertaken in Iraq is an enterprise fraught with unexpected costs and unintended consequences. Even if destroying the old regime entails little military risk, as was the case in Iraq, the task of creating a new regime can be costly, protracted, and strategically exhausting. Indeed, it is probably fair to say that the combination of U.S. preoccupation in postwar Iraq and the more formidable resistance a U.S. attack on Iran or North Korea almost certainly would encounter effectively removes both of those states as realistic targets of forcible regime change…. > > (5) _Be prepared to settle for stability rather than democracy in Iraq, and international rather than U.S. responsibility for Iraq._ > > (6) _Reassess U.S. force levels, especially ground force levels_.\*\* Naturally, I don’t agree with all of the points listed above – in a sense, Record seems to be suggesting _less of the same_, rather than _more of the same_ – but at least it is an alternative to the extreme neo-con programme you appear to promote. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2004, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934/398 "2004-01-16T17:20:46Z")
Oh fun this thread again. So how about that letter from SH telling people not to deal with foreign fighters? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2004, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934/399 "2004-01-16T18:47:12Z")
Proof positive of hidden WMD’s and alliance with Al Queda. (Subtext and hidden meanings…you’d have to be Republican to understand…) ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2004, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934/400 "2004-01-16T19:09:11Z")
Has the admin commented on it yet? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everythings-cool-saddams-been-arrested/218934.md?page=21)