The WaPo says that Qusay was shot twice in the head, just behind and in the ear.
Do you have a link for that, SimonX? I can’t find that story.
The WaPo says that Qusay was shot twice in the head, just behind and in the ear.
The WaPo?___ :)__And exactly what, Mr. SimonX, is your implication within these two most fortuitous shots?
_____________________________
tomndebb,
milum,
The implication is that conspiracists had fodder.
My initial flight of fancy was that the fella who took money from the Husseins for shelter might’ve been trying for the reward money from the US as well.
Well, it seems those who thought this would mean the resistance would fade were wrong.
No, not necessarily. We could very well look back on this a year hence and be satisfied that the deaths of these two were indeed a turning point in ending the resistance, albeit followed by a brief retaliatory spike in attacks. I don’t know that will be so. And you don’t know otherwise for certain either.
Yes Salior, the killings in Iraq must be stopped. But you best not underestimate the tolerence for blood sacrifice and the resolve of a free and determined people to resist agressive threats to the existence of a future world where mankind can live without subjugation and fear.
In 1950-53 we spent the lives of 33,651 young Americans ( my uncle Jack T. Grider, among them) to keep one half of a poor backwoods asian country free from the march of inhumane communism.
Today that lower half of Koera is peopled by free, wealthy, healthy, ingrates, but the Soviet Union is gone and Red China so far sits safely across the Yaloo River. Thanks to many brave Americans.
Twice as many people will be murdered this year in Detroit, Michigan alone, as will be killed by snipers and terroists in Iraq.
These murderers in Detroit have no noble cause and their victims are innocent american citizens. How many of their deaths were reported in the national media today?
This is a hard hard world where even the cowards must be brave.
Bob Cos has a valid point, the following, however, is inane.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Milum *But you best not underestimate the tolerence for blood sacrifice and the resolve of a free and determined people to resist agressive threats to the existence of a future world where mankind can live without subjugation and fear.
[/qutoe]
Worthy of a stump speech. What, however, does it have to do with Iraq?
No aggressive threats.
No threat to existence of the future of the world.
Some value in re subjugation and fear, but hardly the sort of things Americans seem to relish dying for in reality - that is outside of Action Flicks. Not for others that is.
The Korean War
That was realpolitik, and hardly an event of boundless altruism. Let’s spare ourselves the weepy eyed fatuous posturing.
As of yet, with the exception of the attacks on international staff of humanitarian organizations (3 to date) the majority of attacks in no way meet the term “terrorist” - except in some self serving posturing sense.
Guerilla warfare, that’s the term, so guerillas would be the proper descriptor.
Noble blather.
What the funk are you talking about? Resist agressive threats? The only agressor here is the USA and you are right that I hope in the future the USA will not go around threatening other countries. Maybe after some years of occupation in Iraq and nothing to show for it than a lot of dead Americans the USA will think twice before embarking in such endeavors. Korea was, as Coll well says, not about keeping the Korean people free but about competing imperialisms in that part of the world. Then you have Vietnam which cost 50,000 lives and did not go so well. Both Korea and Vietnam were part of the same competition. Both countries were just staging grounds for the powers to have their little, contained, wars. The USA would sell any people if it were in its interest to do so and it has done so many times in recent and not so recent history so spare me the crap. In any case, I only pointed out that those who predicted these deaths would demoralise the resistance were wrong.
I don’t know for certain what will be happening this time next year but, for now, the indication is that those predictions were wrong. For now it just sounds like those predicting the WMD will be found given enough time.
I hate it when someone subtracts a sentence from my post and attempts to create a silly strawman, to wit, “Now you’re thinking like the Bush government!” I was making an observation that there are so many possible charges and so few legal reasons to ever release U&Q we could “try them forever” and “hold them forever” thus “using all the resources in the universe.” Get it? Logic joke about absolute time. But, also true in a legal sense. Those guys may have committed as many crimes–personally–as any people I’ve ever heard of. I’m not even getting into the ones they ordered, then stood by while executed, or ordered but remained far away. Of course, they are culpable for those also.
My point was, for the third time, any due process U&Q have is balanced against the rights of the prosecution to discover evidence in order to prepare a case and indictment. Nobody with any experience in the law can make a compelling argument why U&Q, were they alive, ever be granted bail. Due process here is little more than the ability to first, have the charges read to you in open court, and plead guilty if you feel like it. Second, there are more preliminary hearings on evidentiary matters and such.
The problem is, and I seem to have to keep saying this is that there would be no way to hurry this procedure along. There are still possibly thousands of murder victims yet to be discovered, identified, and investigated. What due process concerns are there in a case where bail isn’t possible? Thre is too muchdence of guilt to make it practicible to stand trial any time soon. That’s not something you hear every day Of course, the charges would range from every felony I’ve ever heard of, murder of every degree, every sex crime I’ve ever heard of, through crimes against humanity, etc.
Due process is great when you’re innocent. Maybe the judge springs you because the prosecution has no evidence. Anyone who thinks due process would make on bit of difference in this hypothetical case of two dead men is dreaming.
Judge: Yes, there is sufficient evidence to charge the defendants. No, bail is denied. Yes, Madame Prosecuter, you have a year to prepare your indictment and may amend as further evidence is discovered. Case recessed until further notice.
Any judge would do the same thing.
Saddam’s invasions of Iran and Kuwait were acts of love? 
Those are not “here”. Those are “there.”
1- Iran: Saddam had the aid, support and encouragement of the USA who went so far as help him use poison gas. To use the war with Iran as a justification of the present occupation is utterly stupid.
2- Kuwait: 12 years ago: the international community supported the expulsion of the Iraqis by force. It was done and that was the end of it. No way to justify the present invasion which is was not accepted by the international community.
The USA is clearly the agressor. Iraq was no threat to the USA or even to its neighbors who did NOT feel threatened.
“…the majority of attacks in no way meet the term “terrorist” - except in some self serving posturing sense.
Guerilla warfare, that’s the term, so guerillas would be the proper descriptor.”__said Collounsbury.
Now is not the time to parse words. Is rolling hand granades into gatherings of american soliders who are peacefully policing the public wellfare in Iraq not an attempt to terrorize?
“…The only agressor here is the USA and you are right that I hope in the future the USA will not go around threatening other countries. Maybe after some years of occupation in Iraq and nothing to show for it than a lot of dead Americans the USA will think twice before embarking in such endeavors.”___so said Salior.
Spit it out Collounsbury. Say it Salior. You do not want the american efforts to democratize the iraqi people to succeed do you…?
I thought not. Now…doesn’t that feel better. This is America and everyone has a right to speak his own opinions, no matter how bizarre.
________________________
It is considered rather poor form to stuff opinions in another’s mouth,and then to mock those selfsame opinions. You have mistaken stridency and sarcasm for probity.
You are on the Pit-bound train.
…bail isn’t possible? There is too much evidence of guilt to make it…
Attempts to terrorize does not necessarily = terrorism. “Shock and Awe” involved attempts to terrorize.
Attacks on uninvolved civilians = terrorism
Attacks on occupying military forces = warfare
There’s no requirement that military forces have to notified before one can attack them within the bounds of conventional warfare. American soldiers are soldiers occupying hostile territory. Attacks by resistance forces on occuppying forces are well within the confines of conventional warfare.
This seems to be the exact opposite of what they want. Maybe you assessment is defective.
Oh, bullpuckey. Collounsbury*, not to mention every other capitalist on the planet, needs to see some kind of stable–but hopefully not supernaturally brutal–regime succeed in Iraq. What is “democracy” anyway? Whenever that topic came up in debate back in college I could define it procedurally, from a rights standpoint, and as a Marxist economist if I was feeling particularly prickly on that day, and of course the debate round called for it. Not to mention all the other definitions.
Back to the real world, I haven’t seen much participatory democracy in Iraq yet. Many people justifibly question whether we want to see popular democracy in Iraq anyway.
Second, how the hell did you get that out of Collounsbury’s post in the first place. He was debating a fricking definition.
It should be noted that we live in a constitutional republic with democratic elections for many offices. Maybe sailor and Collounsbury justifiably militate against the tyrrany of the majority. Maybe, you Milum are the one pushing for the radical agenda. Definitions are funny that way.
*Note: I never kiss his ass. Nor am I member of his fan club. In fact, he’s a bit …ah… annoying in his style of argumentation sometimes.
Maybe Milum is trying to filch[sup]*[/sup] goats with his contentless comments.
[sup]*[/sup] not felch
The first time I did not mention it because I figured it was a typo but that’s sailor to you.
I would also appreciate it if you would not build a straw man based on assuming what outcome I may wish or not wish as it is utterly irrelevant. Do not try to make this thread be about what I wish. Do not try to disqualify my arguments by assigning me motives you do not know. Please stick to discussing the arguments and leave me and my motivations out of it.
Now, repeat with me: The ends do not justify the means.
The fact that something good may come out of something does not justify it.
Would you justify kidnapping the children of poor families and giving them to rich families? After all, the kids would be better off. Well, that is exactly what the Argentinian dictatorship did years ago: they stole babies from political opponents and gave them to couples who were well connected but were sterile. The kids gained so, why would it be wrong? Maybe because The ends do not justify the means?
The fact is that the USA has invaded and occupied Iraq with no legal justification. Whatever good may come of that does not excuse or justify the agression.
And to label the guerillas as “terrorists” is ludicrous on its face. People have the right to resist the occupation of their homeland by foreign forces.