?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
got him - Karen's Musings
Random Rambling
estherchaya
estherchaya
got him
I can't believe it. The US has actually captured Saddam Hussein. I'm not actually certain what to think about this other than knowing that there's no way in hell we're not going to have GW for another four years now. I just can't believe they actually got him.

Current Mood: shocked shocked

13 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
eyelid From: eyelid Date: December 14th, 2003 01:20 pm (UTC) (Link)
Buck up. there's plenty of time for people to forget about this meaningless capture before the 2004 elections.
From: bodnej Date: December 14th, 2003 03:09 pm (UTC) (Link)
Meaningless to you, perhaps. But there are about 20 million Iraqis who would beg to differ.

Maybe the Iraqis can't vote for the US president, but they'll be in an awful lot of campaign ads. They'll make a nice comparison to Howard Dean saying that he "supposes" that overthrowing Saddam was a good idea.
eyelid From: eyelid Date: December 18th, 2003 08:54 am (UTC) (Link)
Maybe the Iraqis can't vote for the US president, but they'll be in an awful lot of campaign ads.

I'm sure they will. Those who are paid to do it, or filmed without their consent for it.

Thank you for confirming that this is all about campaigning.
From: bodnej Date: December 18th, 2003 09:13 am (UTC) (Link)
Yes, George Bush invaded Iraq so that he could be re-elected. Because the best way to get re-elected is to send hundreds of thousands of troops into harms way, and spend a few hundred billion dollars fixing the place afterwards. After all, it worked so well for Lyndon Johnson.

Bush couldn't possibly have thought that Iraq was a dangerous threat to the US and had ignored 17 UN resolutions calling for it to fully disclose its weapons, stop oppressing its people, and stop threatening its neighbors. It was all for the campaign.

Also, Bill Clinton launched the cruise missile attacks at Sudan and Afghanistan to distract attention away from the impeachment trial.

And George H.W. Bush invaded Panama to keep Noreiga from revealing his drug-dealing past as the head of the CIA.

And Reagan invaded Grenada because there was a small army of Martians stationed there, waiting to take over our planet.
eyelid From: eyelid Date: December 18th, 2003 11:05 am (UTC) (Link)
Because the best way to get re-elected is to send hundreds of thousands of troops into harms way, and spend a few hundred billion dollars fixing the place afterwards

Works for most wartime presidents. Don't you know that presidential popularity goes up when we go to war? And also it allows people to say that if you criticize the president/policies/the war, you're unpatriotic and treasonous because you're not supporting the troops in the field...

yes, I think this WAS a propaganda war. Though I also think that money had a lot to do with it. Halliburton anyone?
From: bodnej Date: December 18th, 2003 06:13 pm (UTC) (Link)
Well, I vaguely remember some president named Bush who waged a war and then lost an election barely a year later. But that's just a detail. Surely the current president Bush is so far removed from that example, he would never have thought of it.

And I never mentioned that you are unpatriotic or a traitor. But if you think that you are (or have a guilty conscience that makes you suspect that you might be), who am I to argue?

As for invading Iraq to get money for Halliburton, are you crazy? Let's see, if Bush wanted to funnel lots of money to Halliburton, he could:

a. Have a couple of juicy contracts in the 2 trillion dollar federal budget be sent their way, perhaps via classified agencies whose budges are off-book and not investigated by reporters.

b. Wage a really big, public war at tremendous expense, and give Halliburton contracts in a place where the entire world is watching, and then, have his own Pentagon (which presumably has Bush appointees running it) announce that Halliburton is price gouging.

Oh yeah, choice b looks likely. It's also treason. Are you accusing the president of treason? I thought it was wrong to throw around such charges..

We can play this game when it comes to oil, too. Which is better for those Texas oilmen who put the evil, evil Bush in office:

a. Keep Iraqi oil off the market through continued sanctions

b. Allow an additional 7 million barrels a day of oil on the market

Anyone? Anyone? Please, take your time and state which school of economics supports your theory.
estherchaya From: estherchaya Date: December 15th, 2003 09:24 am (UTC) (Link)
I definitely wasn't trying to imply that I was sorry that SH got captured because that would mean four more years of Bush.

Four more years or not, I'm not sorry that SH was captured. I just don't think that the capture itself will mean much. I think that it will do a lot for the emotional state of the Iraqui people, and change some mindsets, but when it comes down to it, it's not going to speed up reconstruction (unless the resistance says "oh, you got him? Okay, we give up), it's not necessarily going to mean a complete end to the violence. So what, really, changed? I suppose the end of an era. And that's not necessarily meaningless, but I don't know that this is the miracle everyone seems to think it is.
(Deleted comment)
From: bodnej Date: December 15th, 2003 02:04 pm (UTC) (Link)

OBL is roasting in hell

I'm not just following you around and replying to all of your posts. It's just that you say interesting things :-)

I'd bet that bin Laden is dead, killed in mid-December, 2001 at Tora Bora. Before that date, he was making videos non-stop. Since then, no new footage. All it would take to convince the world that he's alive is some video of OBL reading from a newspaper that was published after that date. Somehow, I don't think we're ever going to see that.

Yes, there have been audio tapes, but the quality sucks, just as though someone was trying to fake him still being alive. How hard is it to get a tape recorder to Afghanistan? They can smuggle missiles, guns, and heroin until the cows come home but a video camera or a decent tape recorder is impossible. Why is that?

The US can't prove he's dead, so the government has to assume he's alive. But I can put circumstantial evidence together.

You're right that it's a damn shame there are other dictators in the world who aren't going to face Saddam's fate. Bush has announced that the days when the US would coddle dictators are over. I hope he's telling the truth (and planning on starting with Saudi Arabia). But the US simply can't take care of every corner in the world. We have to pick and choose our fights. Saddam had proven himself a threat in the past, had tried to assassinate a US president, swore to destroy the US, and evidence of his ties to Al Qaeda are popping up now that the Iraqi archives are open. In fact, members of the Iraqi governing council say they have a document that shows that Mohammad Atta was trained in plane hijacking in Iraq by Abu Nidal. Going after Saddam and trying to turn Iraq into a functioning democracy is critical for US security.

It would be nice if, say, the Europeans could take care of other tyrants, perhaps starting with Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe (besides fixing elections, attacking reporters, and throwing farmers off their land to reward his own followers, he's starving tribes besides his own in a pretty apparent attempt at genocide). But they couldn't even handle Yugoslavia right in their own backyard without our help. Turning Kosovo over to the UN has been a disaster; it's now the drug and prostitution capital of Europe, and the Kosovars are ethnically cleansing the provence of Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies.

If more countries were led by adults, this would be a safer and better world. I'm hoping that day will come, but I'm not holding my breath for it to arrive.
eyelid From: eyelid Date: December 18th, 2003 08:33 am (UTC) (Link)
I completely agree.

SH was a bad man. It's good he's in jail. But it hasn't solved a single problem from what I can see.
From: bodnej Date: December 18th, 2003 09:02 am (UTC) (Link)
If it doesn't solve any problems, why is it good that he's in jail? I mean, you don't put people in jail for no reason. Either putting him in jail solves something, or he should be released, the way I see it.
eyelid From: eyelid Date: December 18th, 2003 11:03 am (UTC) (Link)
If it doesn't solve any problems, why is it good that he's in jail? I mean, you don't put people in jail for no reason.

I put people in jail all day long and it doesn't matter to me whether they are going to commit another crime in the future.

If they did something evil, they deserve to go to jail. I'm unabashedly retributivist about criminal law. Though there's always a place for rehabilitation.

Saddam has killed and tortured people and probably done other horrible things (including while D. Rumsfeld was going down to Iraq and shaking his hands). Therefore he doesn't deserve to be free, IMO.
From: bodnej Date: December 18th, 2003 06:00 pm (UTC) (Link)
Then putting Saddam in jail does solve a problem. It punishes a man who has escaped punishment for a lifetime of wickedness. Presumably, being "retributivist", you would think that letting the wicked go unpunished is a problem. Well, guess what? In Saddam's case, the problem is solved.

13 comments or Leave a comment