It looks like Saddam may still be alive. The Army has tried yet again to kill him:
It looks like Saddam may still be alive. The Army has tried yet again to kill him.
Maybeso Ben, but I myself would withhold judgement until a more reliable source collaborates the report by the* BBC*.
You know, like the National Inquirer or* Bagdad Bob*.
Why do you feel that the BBC is unreliable?
A Google News search shows that other news outlets say this as well:
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=73082296&p=73x83xxz (Ireland On-Line)
http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2003/06/22/f233.raw.html (The Herald, Canada)
http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=29688 (PakTribune.com, Pakistan)
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/94867p-85940c.html (New York Daily News)
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=22369 (Indian Express)
Is it just me or is there something at least vaguely wrong about the US trying to kill Saddam Hussein?
I imagine the Bush administration would rather see Saddam dead than captured. I can also see gunning for Saddam at the outset of the war. However, now that Saddam is deposed should the US be openly gunning for the former leader if he is still alive?
[sub]On a personal note I wouldn’t be in the least upset to learn that Saddam was vaporized by a missile but I don’t like the US being in the position of openly assassinating people either.[/sub]
Not just you. You and me, at least.
What would they do if, by some great misfortune, they happened to capture Saddam alive :eek:
Putting him on trial for war crimes, or possession of “weapons of mass destruction” would be a disaster.
Agreed…which is why I said I think the Bush administration prefers him dead rather than captured.
Nevertheless you leave the US in the position of essentially saying it is out to execute someone…no trial or any such thing. While that person initially posed (presumably) a threat to the US that person no longer does. Still…it doesn’t matter. The most powerful nation on earth today is intent on killing that person and is willing to accept incidental casualties in that pursuit.
How harmful could Saddam be if we just let him be? If he sticks his head up and starts making trouble the US can reclaim the right to take him out. Otherwise let him wallow in some rat hole the rest of his life.
“A British newspaper reported on Sunday that that US had fired missiles at a convoy believed to be carrying Saddam Hussein and at least one of his sons.”
In fact, what worries me is the idea of firing missiles to convoys under the BELIEF that Saddam or his sons MAY be there.
I´d rather be 100% sure that I´m not firing at inocent people.
Too late, it looks like it the convoy was not Saddam and his henchmen, just a group of sheep smugglers operating on the Syrian border:
Iraqi Villagers Say Strike Was Case of Mistaken Identity
Of course, sheep smugglers deserve to die, so we did the right thing after all.
Oh, like this entire exercise hasn’t been marinating in immoral and disturbing behavior from the US government already.
I don’t know why they’re bothering to hunt him down now. They kept drilling into us the idea that Hussein himself didn’t matter, that it was more important that the regime itself was deposed.
Going after him after the regime has been deposed tells me that they were lying to us in the first place.
Why do you feel that the BBC is unreliable?
Bless your innocent heart Ben but the BBC is a joke. The BBC is a product of an effete society that whines a sweet tune that sings that life is fair. Life is not fair, thank God. Life is progressive, and expressions of feel-good simplemindisms are an abomination to all free-thinking inductive thinkers of mankind.
How dumb it would be for you to ask me to cite.
Ah, I see- you can’t actually provide any proof for your assertions. Oh well.
Maybe one day you’ll learn that that doesn’t cut it around here.
“Life is not fair, thank God”
I don`t think that was a particularly appropriate phrase.
“Life is progressive”
I´d rather think that life is cyclic; but if it´s progressive, why not make it progressive towards fairness? I mean, if it makes progresses I´m bound to think that it gets better with time if not it would be recessive.
As I’ve said several times in other threads, I challenge this notion that a live Saddam Hussein would be an inconvenient embaressment. What would we charge him with? Well, there are all those mass graves littering Iraq. Just pulling things out of my ass, wouldn’t murder be a good first start? Even opponents of the war can agree that a reconstituted Iraqi justiciary should have no problem pinning a couple thousand counts of murder-one on the bastard. That should net him either a few thousand years in prison or a death sentence, depending on Iraq’s new legal code. Problem solved. Done, and done.
It might be difficult to pin 9-11 on Osama bin Ladin, given the irregular and compartmentalized nature of Al Qaida. But the files and records of Saddam Hussein’s own bureaucracy should provide all the evidence we need. Murder, torture, rape, genocide, embezzlement…whatever you like. Surely we can all agree that Saddam has commited an enormous number of despicable crimes in his career as dictator of Iraq, right?
I dread to think what Milium is a product of. Whatever it is, I doubt they’d own up to it.
cut to White House
Bush (to sky): SADDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMM!!!
Actually, Milum is the product of my home state, Alabama.
(And it’s not “Milium.” He’s named after the munitions manufacturer.)