Honestly, AHunter3.
You are comparing a butcher who gassed his own people and dumped 400,000 bodies into unmarked graves with a Texas cowboy who had the balls to stand up to the UN and got him the hell out of there?
Go buy yourself some perspective, please.
I’m wondering what Saddam will have to say. Will Rove write a scenario? Or will Saddam get to speak his piece? Or will he be totally silenced?
Thrown in a naval brig in Charleston or something? I’m thinking capturing him alive might come back to bite Bushco.
Look. If he’s boxed in and negated, it’s as good as if he were in jail. I never said it was an ideal situation, I said it was good enough.
Cool your jets, man.
How about a Texas cowboy who showed contempt for international law, lied his way into an illegal war and slaughtered thousands of people for no fucking reason? Bush is only marginally less of a criminal than Hussein is.
I didn’t know Saddam was from Texas, Diogenes. You learn something every day, I guess.
In other news, Bush’s hunt for his own backside has been narrowed down to three blocks in the Washington, D.C., region of the USA. Senior officials told RKNEWS that even using both hands, locating the buttocks was proving “challenging”. “But we are confident that, with God on his side, success will soon be within the president’s grasp,” an aide said, adding “God Bless America!”
So, why aren’t there any US troops invading Pakistan right now?
The brain behind the 9/11 attacks, arguably the hardest blow America took since Pearl Harbor, resides in an area the size of a medium sized American city. It could be easily surrounded, and attacked from all sides. Sure, it would be a blood bath, but we would be fairly certain that all or most victims would be Al Queda members. The region is desolate, there’s not a lot of infrastructure to be destroyed, so no huge rebuilding costs. Sure, it takes invading a sovereign nation, but that didn’t stop them invading Iraq (although I’ll concede Pakistan is a little higher up on the ladder of democracy than Iraq was).
Oh, wait. Could it be that, I dunno, Pakistan actually has WMD’s, and just might use them when they’re being invaded, especially when the part that’s being invaded is desolate and resourceless?
I guess it’s a lot more fun shooting up a relatively defenseless country under the guise of “finding WMD’s” than it is to actually attack those who hurt your country, even IF it means offending a sovereign nation. It’s all about the re-election, man.
Still, when all is said and done, Saddam being captured is a good thing. The Hague is ready for him - he can bunk with Milosevic. For God’s sake, America, don’t try him on your own, lest you’ll unleash another 9/11 on your nation.
The problem with this is, and the reason Dems like me are not exactly thrilled, is because it’s still all a load of fucking BULLSHIT.
I’m irritated as hell knowing that there is that 10-20% (depending on who you ask) who are in the middle that can be SWAYED by this into thinking that Bush is a worthwhile president! And nothing about this makes him so, nothing. Even if Saddam points out a few pathetic attempts as WMD. The whole thing was a fucking lie from Day One.
Oh man, I started to go there and I just can’t, my fingers can’t take it. Suffice it to say I’m disgusted.
**
Are you sure OBL is in Pakistan? I thought they still beleive he’s in Afghanistan.
**
Well, first off, we have nothing to suggest that Pakistan is complicit in hiding OBL or even that he’s there, so I’m not sure why you think we should invade.
Afghanistan sheltered OBL and was complicit, Iraq had attacked it’s neighbors and was in material breach of resolutions that were perquisite to keeping it’s sovereignty.
What rationale do we have for invading Pakistan any more than, say, Denmark?
What did Pakistan do to us? I’m under the impression that they were fairly helpful and cooperative during the Afghan war.
Cnote Chris
GoBear:
GoHeels:
Yeah, I know. There’s definitely a voice I’m hearing in my head that says “Ahunter, old fellow, there’s a pretty strong likelihood that you’ve lost all trace of perspective here”.
But it’s a little voice so far.
The likelihood of me personally ending up beneath the oppressor-heel of Saddam Hussein is very small. The other guy, while obviously a much lesser evil, is an evil of this world, the world of laws and policies and politics that directly affect me.
Maybe I’ll wake up in a more rational mood tomorrow.
Because it would be a bloodbath.
There was a very small window of opportunity – measured in hours perhaps, certainly not more than days – in which we could have used anything up to and including strategic nuclear weapons on an area in which ObL was hiding, and the RotW would have been too embarassed to object to the slaughter. That window of opportunity is long past, however.
Nor is the statement “all or most victims would be Al Queda members” true. Sympathetic to al-Qa’ida, undoubtedly – except, of course, for the pre-pubescent children whose deaths tranzies, nominally American and otherwise, will be the first to howl over. Al-Qa’ida sympathizers – well, let’s first define the line between “sympathetic to” and “sympathizers”. Al-Qa’ida members…I believe that you over-estimate the number of members that it has.
I said it once and I’ll repeat it: OSL is NOT negated and will not be so long as he is alive. I doubt that he is as boxed in as you seem to think he is. He is an immediate threat to the USA and Saddam never was. Even so, capturing Sadam is a good thing. It would be an even better thing if we had killed him on sight.
As happy as I am for the Iraqi people, I’m not exactly loving that I’m going to be hearing this lie from the same lying weasels for the next four years.
Some people lack for nothing, except shame.
Sorry for misunderstanding pantom but your doomsday scenario sounds so much like some of the wet dreams I’ve heard described around here that I mistook it.
I still hope my objections to your points turn out to be right.
So do I. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t have posted it if I didn’t think it would turn out to be correct.
But, you know, if I was always right I’d be a lot richer than I am. There’s a cheery thought! Sort of.
BTW, AHunter3’s point isn’t completely irrational. We’ll see how much Saddam’s capture will affect the Iraqi insurgency. If it turns out that attacks continue apace then it might have been better for everyone (except the Republicans) to have had SH captured after American elections.
IIRC they (or at least influential sections of the Pakistani secret services) supported the Taliban, and helped them stay in power before 9/11 - only pretty direct threats from the US got the Pakistan gov “on side” for the invasion and many suspicions remain about Pakistan help given to Taliban and Al Q in escaping from Afghanistan - certainly there seem to be greater links between Al Q and Pakistan than Iraq (or Denmark)
So as long as he’s only killing people you don’t know personally, or maybe just foreigners, thats OK?
Boo Boo Foo: noted. I’ve actually speculated with my wife about this sort of thing. I have a friend who lived in NZ for a year on a planned two week vacation: he’s a programmer and they desperately needed his skills there, so he wound up staying for a year and having a ball. He then went to OZ for six months or so, living in the Outback. Loved it there too. I’ve never quite been able to figure out why he came back.
To be fair to AHunter3’s POV, Bush kills foreigners too.
I don’t think AHunter’s sentiment is so totally out-of-line. Ridding the world of Saddam Hussein is, indeed, an absolute good, but we’d be just as rid of him if he were a mangled corpse buried in an unmarked grave somewhere out in the desert, or a red smear underneath a hundred tons of concrete rubble. I was disappointed to hear he had been captured because I had been hoping he was already dead. Now he’s not only still alive, he’s a PR tool for the Bush re-election campaign.
On the other hand, if proof of Hussein in captivity does lead to a decrease in partisan attacks in Iraq, then consider the above retracted. I don’t think that it will, although I hope I’m wrong.