More on Saddam’s spider-hole:
(from the ever objective MSNBC)
“Candy Bars and Hot Dogs” were in there.
I am not kidding.
Furthermore, Apple Pie and a Chevrolet were un-earthed in Saddam’s palatial “spider-hole”. No reports yet on Saddam’s favourite beverage. Some say Royal Crown, other’s say Dr. Pepper. More facts to come from Karl Rove’s ass.
There I am kidding. Except that last butt. I mean bit.
So will spider-hole enter everyday lexicon now?
It’s two things:
The inability of the Democrats to get their sh*t together and present the truth to the public in easily-digestible sound bites. Part of this factor might be because Democrats tend to work more on nuiances, while the GOP prefers to use simplistic black-and-white summaries (“Axis of evil,” “With us or against us,” etc.).
The corporate-friendly conservative media, which helps spread this right-wing claptrap with a straight face. The fact that Bill O’Reilly hasn’t been laughed off the air, that Ann Coulter can actually get a publisher to print her stuff, and that Fox News is the ratings leader other news networks are chasing, are all signs of how seriously f*cked up the populace is.
You’re actually reading, as opposed to spending your time watching Survivor and simply believing everything Our Belevolent Masters shovel out.
I, for one, welcome our bellicose, umm belliger… I mean malevolent bastards…rather our new Belevolent Masters.
Jayzus H. Evil I tells ya!
Seriously, the dude is scary. If I can find an AP photo, I’ll post a link.
“spider-hole” apparently originated in WW2 - describing Japanese entryways into tunnels. It was also used to describe Viet-Cong tunnels. I’ve never heard it before. Spiders have lairs, webs, but holes?
I love the word Belevolent 
Shit. I think I have that exact same tie.
Wasn’t cheap, either. But it shall have to be ritually burned now.
Isn’t that a bit like dumping French wine into a river as a protest?
Are you accusing me of mindless jingoism, you unpatriotic traitor?
Y’know, not everything that happens in Iraq is a Rovian machination. Just like how not everyone who died in 16th Century France was poisoned by Catherine de Medici.
I don’t know where to post this question. It’s too weird for me to put into GD thread so I’ll try here.
Remember the footage of Saddam that was shown on TV this spring? The footage of short-bearded, trim-haired Saddam accompanied by someone who looked like his son, shaking hands with throngs of jubilant people?
Was that a fake Saddam? I don’t see how it couldn’t be because you can’t grow a “wino” beard like he was sporting yesterday over the course of a few months. Right?
I had that exact same conversation with my boss today. That’s one hell of a beard, for 8 or 9 months. Proves nothing, of course, but it apparently was noticed by more people than you alone, monstro.
People grow hair at different rates and lengths. Certain ethnic groups are stereotyped as being hairier than others if you’ll recall. Saddam could be the kind of fellow who grows hair rapidly. I, for example, grow facial hair pretty rapidly, but it stops getting longer after about two months.
I applaud the reference, Michael Ellis
Catherine de’ Medici was a woman who truly lived.
I reckon history has not been kind to Ol’ Catherine. Sure, she was crafty, conniving and unscrupulous. Yet I imagine she used those qualities with charismatic flair.
If she was Saruman, Karl Rove would be Grima Wormtongue.
Bush-43 calls him “Turd Blossom”
'nuff said. 
Coldfire:
I Don’t get it, are you seriously advocating and invasion of Pakistan?
I disagree. Saddam hated the US and the resources of an entire country at his disposal.
Yes, but they cooperated nonetheless. Perhaps Saddam would have cooperated more fully had the world been similarly united. I think one of the reasons we ended up at war was because Saddam thought the dissenting opinion would save him.
But enought about Pakistan. I don’t think you seriously mean we should invade, your just making a point. I don’t happen to think it’s a valid one. The situations are not equivalent.
I see you asking this question several different times. I’ll do my best to give you an answer. My answer.
9/11 is not an event to get revenge over. It is a warning. What it says to me is that the world is small. Ignorant superstitious fanatics can reach out from a desert and knock down our buildings.
Technological progress has put horrible weapons within the reach of some scary groups and individuals. If we do nothing, it is a sure bet that at some time in the near future, our cities will burn with the nuclear fire unleashed by some fanatic or our citizens will die from a genetically engineered plague. And it’s not just the US. Terror is a reality across the world as are the growing capabilitites of terrorists.
It would be nice to get Bin Laden, but getting him won’t change that.
So how do you change it? What do you do?
You can’t get every Bin Laden or potential Bin Laden. There’s no way to tell who would become a terrorist given the opportunity, or who harbors evil thoughts but hasn’t done anything about them. There will always be kooks and fanatics.
So how do you change it? What do you do?
I see only one way. You have to change the world. Terrorism changed the world. It brought in a new paradigm. It changed the rules. It is within our power to change the world again. We need a new paradigm that makes terrorism not viable. We need to make it so that they will have nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, and noone who will dare help them.
We need to focus on these worst weapons, and those who have them or are capable of having them must demonstrate responsibility. Saddam had chemical weapons. He used them. He invaded his neighbors. We had to kick him out. He sent missiles at a noncombatant (Israel,) which is a terror tactic, he has given verbal support to terrorists, and perhaps more (but we don’t know,) and he has been flaunting the resolutions that are meant to prevent him from gaining weapons.
So, he’s a legitimate threat to us. Giving aid and weapons to Al Qaeda is a logical step for him to take. They share similar goals. He wants more power. He wanted to be the focus of admiration to anti-western sentiment and he bombed Israel to get it. He’s really nothing more than a terrorist who owns a country.
Now, agreed that logically the fact that he might be apt to give aid to other terrorists is by itself a weak argument to wage war. But, it’s not a vaccum. His past behavior doesn’t say that he deserves the benefit of the doubt or forbearance. He is in violation of resolutions that are in place because we had to stop him before. Because of this Iraq is our legitimate purview.
More importantly though than the actual threat is the new paradigm that we must achieve. Saddam is an example that you can continually thwart the will of the world and make a threat of yourself, that you can violate resolutions and do your own thing, that we will not follow through. That a rogue nation can exist, that a terrorist with a country is a violable proposition. That you can get away with terror tactics.
The paradigm that prevents the nuclear fire from burning in NY or Amsterdam is that no matter what, you will never ever get away with it. If you aid terrorists if you attack your neighbors, if you use terror tactics, if you flaunt the rules and resolutions that are designed to prevent you from being the danger you have demonstrated yourself to be… than you will cease to exist. It will be inevitable.
Saddam as a threat has been removed. That’s an achievement. The more important achievement though is that you cannot get away with what Saddam did in this new world that exists after 9/11. That sends a message to any country that thinks about using terrorists or terror tactics to political advantage. It sends a message to any country that might consider harboring terrorists or aiding them, or even not being diligent about any who might happen to be within their borders. It sends a message to anyone who is thinking about playing fast and loose with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons.
In the past countries would sign treaties and resolutions saying they wouldn’t do this, or they wouldn’t do that, or that there would be consequences if they did… and then they’d go an do it anyway and renegotiate it after the fact.
The plight of Saddam and Iraq say that on this issue we really really mean it. There is no negotiations after the fact. You cannot escape through diplomacy or posturing, you can’t even escape by causing dissent amongst our allies. If you fuck with us, in this manner we will get you. If you show yourself or posture as a threat, we will end you. It will be inevitable.
If we do this, if we start enforcing these things in a no bullshit manner, if we make promises and keep them, the world will change. Nobody will be willing to aid terrorists financially, or through training or even through inaction, because they know that if they do, they will pay for it.
Iraq is important for another reason. The mideast is the hotbed of terrorism, the biggest and most dangerous breeding ground. We have to change the feeling of that part of the world. They should fear being our enemy and they should enjoy being our friend. A democracy in Iraq is a good thing for us. An Iraq that is free and prosperous and independant shows us for our good nature. It shows that our ire is not against muslims or the people of the middle east, it is against those that attack us. It show that we are good partners. It is an example.
We’re trying to change the world. We are trying to end terrorism. We are trying to make the world a better and safer place for people of goodwill to live together and prosper.
Those words are said so often and there are so many who smirk and who don’t beleive, and think that is a political rationale. But, I mean them. I mean them sincerely, and I beleive my government means them sincerely. I think that this is a gift that we can give ourselves and the world. I think it will be unpopular among the shortsighted or those that fear stirring the hornets’ nest, or those that see it as simply a political excuse.
But I don’t think it’s an excuse. We are good country, a generous country, and we are truly trying to make the world a better place so that an apocolypse is not brought on by an ignorant fanatic, or a country that thinks it can get away with aiding him, or allowing him to exist and function.
Iraq is a part of the war on terror. It is changing the world.
You have to decide what kind of person you are here.
I’ll give you an example.
There are hornets underneath my porch. When I got stung, I was able to slap and kill the hornet that stung me. Getting OBL is killing the hornet that stung me.
I went a step further. I got some spray and sprayed the nest by the door. Invading Afghanistan was spraying that nest.
I recognized that I had a hornet problem, though. One hornet was not the problem. the problem was the environment that was conducive to hornets living in high traffic areas for me and my family.
So I went under the porch with my spray and I killed them all. Then I got some screen and sealed in the porch with the screenign so that no hornets could build nests there.
That’s what Iraq is about. It’s about changing the environment. It’s not just about getting rid of this hornet, or that nest. It’s about getting rid of hornets in general.
The plight of Iraq speaks to Syria and Turkey. It speaks to any other nation that is thinking of playing games destabilizing the region or allowing terrorists domicile. It sends a message to the Palestinians. Declare yourself. Which side do you want to be on? You must now choose. We will enforce that choice. There’s no bullshit or posturing in this. We mean it.
We are changing the world.
That’s what it means to me. We have to change the world. Give me another scenario that prevents another 9/11 or worse.
[/QUOTE]
(replying to Scylla’s post even though it was addressed to Coldfire)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Scylla *
**We are changing the world.
That’s what it means to me. We have to change the world. Give me another scenario that prevents another 9/11 or worse. **
In a word: Wisdom.
“In those homely sayings was couched the collective wisdom of generations” - Maya Angelou
Carl Sagan wrote about the “Drake Equation” - which predicts the chance of life in the galaxy. It basically assigns a probability to stars that have planets, last long enough to allow life to possibly form, for intelligent life to evolve…
The folks supporting SETI (Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence) use that equation. They (we?) want to find life out there. The suprising thing is - even if you assign fairly low chances to planets forming, life happening, intelligent life - the equation still suggests tens of thousands of stars with life. Now some of those planets may not develop radio technology - TV/radio. Maybe they’re a planet of artists - maybe it’s cloudy all the time.
If Earth is populated for a couple million years - there’s a damn good chance we’ll hear from somewhere out there, or they’ll hear from us, or we’lleven go there.
Maybe cultures that achieve technology snuff themselves out.
Massive post, Scylla. ‘Struth, if we grant your premises and the reasonability of your subsequent suppositions, you case would be a strong one. It depends, on large part, on conjectures at best, well, conjectural. For the sake of brevity, if not mental hygiene, I’m just going to pick a couple of prominent points. This should not be taken as implying agreement with the rest of it.
There is nothing remotely new about “terrorism”. Not by any stretch of the imagination. What is new is the emotional impact on Americans. “Terrorism” does not require drastic and radical departures from accepted international norms of behavior, it does not justify relinquishing any ethical stance we might have taken. The fact that a gang of Keystone Kop buffoons can pull off something like this with boxcutters speaks of our stupidity more that their cunning. Ask yourself this: could you walk into an unlocked cabin door on an Israeli airliner?
No matter what evil men do, the requirements and responsibilities of good men do not vary.
Your generously flexible definition of a “terror tactic” is called to service, once again. State to state military actions are “war”. In this case, the deplorable crime of an aggressive military act against a nation that had not shown direct belligerence. Sounds rather familiar, actually.
“Verbal support to terrorists…” Well, whoop-dee-fuck-a-doo!
“And maybe more, we don’t know” Then why bring it up, unless to try to bolster conjecture with insinuation?
“…flaunting the resolutions…” Yes, even going to far as to dismantle missiles when called upon to, the very day we are going to war to punish him for his failure to do so. But, please, do not try to drape UN legitimacy over this. If a UN Resolution has the force of law over nations, then it has such force over ours as well. Selective obedience is non-obedience.
So why didn’t he? Saddam hated us, lo, these many years, as has Osama? Did they just not think of it? Never crossed their minds? Or did Osama shrink from deploying such weapons from his deep seated tenderheartedness? If you are going to posit the reasonability of such an alliance of mutual antagonists, don’t you have to explain why it hasn’t resulted in anything?
Again, this is nothing remotely new. Can you doubt, for one moment, that Saddam knew that if a terrorist attack on America was shown to be performed with weapons provided by Saddam, that Baghdad would be a glowing crater in the Godforsaken Desert in less than half an hour? Hell, we invaded him on the basis of no proof whatsoever! What might we have done if we actually had something!
It is no such thing. If anything, it is a distraction from the war on terror. Outside of your clairvoyant conjectures, you have nothing linking Saddam with any terrorism related to the United States. And if you wish to make the leap of faith that will place America at war with any terrorism, anywhere, may we then presume you will strongly support an armored division of US troops crashing into Belfast, should the IRA get touchy? Hand Pooty-Poot a carte blanche to deal with the Chechnyans in a manner congruent with KGB-style gentility?
Indeed.
I am sorry not to have been able to participate in this pissing match until now. I have however been necessarily diverted from the fun and game around here by the need to blow out a couple kidney stones. It is enough now to point out that (1)morphine is a gift of the Gods and (2) it is the practice of the Mayo Clinic emergency department to quarter a perfectly inoffensive middle aged country lawyer in the same room as a large and belligerent drunk whose efforts to go home and teach that bitch a lesion she will never forget were strenuously repressed by armed members of the Rochester Police Department. Perhaps more on this when I start to see the humor of the situation.
In the mean time, our friend Scylla contribution to this thread is no more that a return to his tired and hackneyed “Big Dawg” theory of the application of American power, previously exposed to the light of day in the notorious “Thanksgiving Pile-on.” As a theory it is reprehensible. As a practical approach to international affairs it bears the seeds of its own destruction and poses more questions than it answers. Mr Bush and the boys may waive the bloody shirt to their content but the fact remains that the pretext for the war was fraudulent. In the meantime, the celebration over the capture of one defunct very bad man serves in no way to advance the efforts to punish and suppress the people who perpetrated the horrors of September 11. It may well serve to demoralize the people in Iraq who see their personal fortunes as being tied to the return of Saddam, but it does nothing to close down the people whose resistance to the occupation of Iraq founded in nationalism and religion. Whether Saddam is captured or at large. the chief villain is still at large and the young men of Arabia continue to be better schooled in an xenophobic theology than in the political or practical arts and sciences.
[Bones]“Jim, I’m just a innoffensive middle aged country lawyer…”[/Bones]
Next time, when they ask your profession, say “child molester”. You’ll get better booking.
I congratulate your insight about blessings from the Goddess, which, you should note, comes frequently in the guise of flowers. And, of course, weeds. The occassional mushroom. Man, I love Nature!
Get Well Soonest! That is an order from the Central Committee.
elucidator:
I think you’re wrong. Terrorism as we know it today is a post WWII phenomenom. It’s made for television and today’s global media. Targets are attacked for the publicity value it brings the cause of those doing the attacking. Before the modern media it just didn’t work. Now though, you can make the global news for your cause by setting off a handgrenade in a disco.
Terrorism is not guerrilla warfare. It’s mayhem for media value.
Again, I disagree. I think it’s a mistake to view it that way. This was a complex and cunning attack that required serious logistical and technical challenges. Training, coordination, commitment, loyalty and skill were needed to pull it off. The attack was organized and sophisticated.
I don’t think Israel is a good example of diligence creating a terror free state. Do you?
No. I don’t think so. The attack on Israel had no military value. It didn’t accomplish anything from that standpoint. He was killing people to get attention. That’s why it’s terrorism and not an act of war.
Support is support. He made it clear which side he was on. Declare yourself for the enemy and you become the enemy.
Two things. There’s such a thing as too little too late. You can’t undo thirty five years of terror against your own people, and ten years of violations by dismantling a token missile in the 11th hour. I think whether or not we should have given him more time is a legitimate debating point. Having said that, hopefully you can see that one or two missiles was pretty much a token gesture.
Secondly, you’ve brought up this selectivity of resolution enforcing thing before. It’s a load crap, IMO. By your same logic, since all laws cannot be enforced perfectly therefore we should not enforce any. Crap. Selectivity and choice are facts. And it’s not like we were hung up on enforcing one minor technicality. What is it, like 77 resolutions ignored? Even if I accept your ridiculous logic about not being selective and strive for perfect enforcement, Iraq would be a good place to start since we enforce 77 or so resolutions with one action.
Sure. One reason it didn’t come to anything is that we were limiting Saddam’s ability to get these things and starving the people of Iraq with our embargos. Another reason why it hasn’t resulted in anything is because we’ve been going after both Al Quaeda and Iraq. It’s not happening because were preventing it.
Well gee, I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t give them a bomb with a “made in Baghdad” label on it. There are many levels of assistance and aid that can be given. Money, training, basic materials, transportation, expertise. We’re talking about degrees here. The old paradigm of course is that if Saddam gave them a nuke and they used it, we would surely stomp his ass. But again, in the old way, we wouldn’t necessarily stomp him if the terrorists just hung around ambiguously in his country for a while, if he gave them money, or a place to stay, or some other help short of giving a bomb. Look at Libya. All the aid they gave terrorists and qadaffi got to stay in power.
That’s the paradigm that has to change. You can’t just not give them a bomb. If you aid or help them in any way you will share equally in the responsibility. If you are not diligent in preventing them from acting in your borders you will share equally in the responsibility. If you declare yourself on their side you will share in the responsibility. That’s what’s new.
I kind of think of his approval of the Cole bombing and the WTC attack link him. He declared his side. And, it doesn’t have to be against the United States. It doesn’t even have to be against our allies (and surely you understand how he’s attacked and made himself a danger to his allies.) He’s committed acts of terror within his borders and he’s committed international acts of terror. He was a total fucking tyrant and sack of shit who caused countless human misery. The question isn’t to justify taking him out. The question is why wasn’t it done a long time ago. There was no shortage of good reasons to remove the sonuvabitch.
I think countries that are acting diligently to handle their terror problems don’t necessitate our unsolicited interference. I think if the Irish Government was supporting the IRA and helping them or identifying themselves as comrades and cheering acts of International terrorism than we would be justified. The Government of Ireland is not the problem. In Iraq the Government was the problem. It’s a big difference.
