|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 14, 2003 8:51:50 GMT -5
Here's the story. As you surf through the stories you'll read he was caught in a spider hole located in the basement of a farm house. The hole was six to eight feet deep with a ventilation pipe for breathing. www.cnn.com/One question though ... where's the weapons? Cheers. |
|
HFFM
Rookie
Posts: 62
|
Post by HFFM on Dec 14, 2003 12:45:24 GMT -5
"One question though ... where's the weapons?"
Good question Dis. Good question. Unfortunately, it's just one of a large number of questions that many people won't (but should) continue to ask about this whole situation.
Hussein's capture will be a positive thing so long as he is tried, judged and convicted by his own people and not by some coalition-appointed tribunal that may or may not even represent the interests of the Iraqi people. From the standpoint of a U.S. citizen who has never supported Bush's policies, however, I fear that Hussein's capture only obscures the issues and mistakes that continue to mar this campaign and might only serve as the smokescreen GW was looking for to get himself re-elected.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Dec 15, 2003 1:49:53 GMT -5
One question though ... where's the weapons? Cheers. A later report stated that a mini-excavator was used in a 10 metre circumference around the 'hole', but there was no stash of wiffle-bats. The only weapon of mass destruction in sight was a case of Brut. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Dec 15, 2003 10:11:57 GMT -5
One question though ... where's the weapons? I think we all know the answer to that question. The real question is whether it was deliberate misleading, or just incompetence on the supreme level. Anyways, what’s done is done. The “coalition of the willing” is engaged now, and for their sake, and more importantly, for our sake, I hope the coalition continues to be willing. The mess has been made, as we all knew it would be made, and now it has to be cleaned up, for everyone’s sake. Not just the Iraqi people, but for the entire Mid-East, and by extension, the entire world. A stable Mid-East eliminates a lot of problems, everywhere. My biggest fear was that the will would be weak, and the pull-out quick. Apathy runs deep in the Western World, and apathy is the biggest enemy to peace and security at the moment. Ask the people of Afghanistan. The US CANNOT turn their backs on this job, before it is done, regardless of whether it takes 5 years, 10 years, or 25 years. It HAS to be done. In that light then, capturing Saddam Hussein is a huge victory, even though he had little to nothing to do with the post-fall chaos. What it does is give the Americans a huge moral victory, and it will boost Bush’s popularity through the roof, and it will give him more time to continue the job. He was seriously running out of public leeway, and another couple of months of death, destruction, and futility would seriously hampered his ability to keep the troops in Iraq. Now though, he has a gift, something to show the American people, to say “look, we ARE winning.” That buys him time, and time right now, is what he needs. With Hussein gone, maybe (hopefully) the moral of the insurgents will falter, and the rebellion will taper off. Maybe now, they have a chance of really rebuilding, of really doing what they said they were going to do. Here’s hoping, anyways. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 15, 2003 10:17:10 GMT -5
"One question though ... where's the weapons?" Good question Dis. Good question. Unfortunately, it's just one of a large number of questions that many people won't (but should) continue to ask about this whole situation. Hussein's capture will be a positive thing so long as he is tried, judged and convicted by his own people and not by some coalition-appointed tribunal that may or may not even represent the interests of the Iraqi people. From the standpoint of a U.S. citizen who has never supported Bush's policies, however, I fear that Hussein's capture only obscures the issues and mistakes that continue to mar this campaign and might only serve as the smokescreen GW was looking for to get himself re-elected. I watched Bush's address the other day and to tell you the truth, I was impressed. Like many, I was waiting for the gloating conqueror speach, but in reality he was objective and consice; the man is in custody and he will be tried. But, then my impression changed as he exited stage left. He didn't leave any room for questions, one of which might have been, "where's the weapons, George?" The thing is, HFFM, the world has one less tyrant in it right now and that is significant especially to the USA. That's honest actually, as Saddam made it quite clear what he though of Americans. Most Iraqi people who have been living in squaller their entire existances are no doubt rejoicing. And it's entirely possible leaders of other countries are applauding his capture as well. That, or quivering at the fact they may be next. But, it's important not to lose the focus of the WMD issue. Ever since they couldn't find anything, coalition forces have been flogging the "find-Saddam-at-all-costs" issue. I felt somewhat let down when they reverted to this, all the while deflecting the WMD issue as it came up. I'm sure the coalition feels they have their trophy, and rightly so; the man is in custody now. But I'm really hoping the world isn't distracted from the original platform, WMD. In your opinion, what's the mood down south, HFFM? Is public opinion still somewhat skeptical? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 15, 2003 10:39:43 GMT -5
I'm really trying to stay positive here, BC, but I'm one of those who supported the war and Canada's involvement as well. I feel somewhat let down now and feel that to be honest. Until those weapons, or at least proof of their existance is given, I don't think I can quickly change that feeling. And, as you alluded to, who knows if the proof will be creditable. The stability you refer to I think comes from two situations. The first, and obvious one, is the Christmas gift the coalition got when they nabbed Saddam. The second one might be showing the rest of the Middle East just how easy it was to get to Baghdad or to win a war in Afghanistan. They had the weapons, the troops and the money (not an issue when waging war). Both conflicts are ongoing, but the campaigns used to stabilize their objectives were quick and decisive. Most countries can admit to that. Iran was taking a hard-line stance with regards to verifying their WMD capabilities, but after noting how easily Saddam fell, they thought otherwise. The American forces are extremely motivated and loyal to their president now. He's openly taken the same risks they are on a daily basis; flying onto an aircraft carrier to greet the troops and then making an unannounced visit to Iraq; absolutely awesome displays of leadership! They'll go the extra mile for him alone now; his visits also proved that they are totally in control now. But, other issues have clouded this mess now. Bush calling for UN humanitarian and military aid. In my opinion if they want the UN in, the coalition must leave as soon as the UN is in control; a hard job to do for sure especially when you consider the UN doesn't have the firepower the coalition has. Also, I think locking out non-participatory countries in the bidding for contracts that will help rebuild Iraq is also wrong. It proves that they don't want an international effort, but rather just the countries who they feel deserve the privilege. Well, make up your minds; do you want an international effort, or don't you? Do you want the UN and it's member countries in there or not? I'm not saying that's the way it is, but it's certainly a perception shared by many. While there are many positives in the apprehension of Saddam, I feel there are far too many contradictions right now. Until they can sort that out it will be hard for me to remain positive. In any event, Merry Christmas to our American and British friends. They have one less "I-hate-USA-and-Birt-guys" on the planet. I, too, am greatful for that. Cheers. |
|
HFFM
Rookie
Posts: 62
|
Post by HFFM on Dec 15, 2003 10:54:58 GMT -5
"In your opinion, what's the mood down south, HFFM? Is public opinion still somewhat skeptical?"
Public opinion on Hussein's capture is very positive, but I have seen nothing that would indicate a major spike in the public approval ratings concerning Bush's efforts (the pros and cons are still running at about 50% a piece). This event might provide a short boost in the public opinion arena, but my sense is that most people are waiting to see what effect this actually has on the fighting before expressing optimism about this whole affair.
Let's face it; Hussein was a brutal dictator and while the means have been questionable, the end result is that he is no longer in power, which is good news. As we both alluded to in our respective posts, however, this event has diverted attention away the whole WMD issue. My sense is that once the buzz surrounding Hussein's capture has died down a bit, these questions will come up again during the campaign season, especially if the violence continues.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 15, 2003 11:20:14 GMT -5
I'm slinking in here..........hidden by the cyber bushes......with a big smle on my face..... ;D Another year or so.......when the Iraqi's have their elections and things start to cool down.......I have time........  |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 15, 2003 12:39:50 GMT -5
Public opinion on Hussein's capture is very positive, but I have seen nothing that would indicate a major spike in the public approval ratings concerning Bush's efforts (the pros and cons are still running at about 50% a piece). This event might provide a short boost in the public opinion arena, but my sense is that most people are waiting to see what effect this actually has on the fighting before expressing optimism about this whole affair. It's rather odd, but I still remember the recounting of the Florida vote. I also remember the gap growing ever closer each time they recounted the ballats. So much so that Bush might have eventually lost had they went to additional recounts. I guess opinion hasn't been swayed one way or the other since then. It seems like his tenure has just blew by. I remember the Florida recount as if it were yesterday. No arguement there, HFFM. It's a positive for the entire region including Israel. Cheers. |
|
HFFM
Rookie
Posts: 62
|
Post by HFFM on Dec 15, 2003 13:54:47 GMT -5
It's rather odd, but I still remember the recounting of the Florida vote. I also remember the gap growing ever closer each time they recounted the ballats. So much so that Bush might have eventually lost had they went to additional recounts. I guess opinion hasn't been swayed one way or the other since then. It seems like his tenure has just blew by. I remember the Florida recount as if it were yesterday. No arguement there, HFFM. It's a positive for the entire region including Israel. Cheers. The one thing about the 2000 election that still sticks out in my mind is that Bush lost the popular vote and just barely won the electoral vote (with a little help from the Supreme Court I should add). So from that standpoint, the majority of Americans did not favor him at the time (not unlike Kennedy when he became President). While Bush's popularity went through the roof during the 9/11 crisis and the months following it, his approval ratings have taken a precipitous drop since the invasion of Iraq, so in some ways, he is right back where he started when he first took office. His re-election this time around will hinge on whether we are still in Iraq come Election Day and whether the status quo remains the. If things are still a mess in Iraq and the economy fails to "take off" the way he is predicting it will, I don't see him serving a second term. |
|
|
|
Post by Pam on Dec 15, 2003 14:53:41 GMT -5
Hi Dis,
I'm glad Saddam is finally in custody but it's about 12 years late in my opinion. This blight on the world should have been taken down when Bush's father was in office, but Bush Senior was a wus. Saddam was gassing his own people in experiements. He was worse than a dictator or tyrant. He should have never been allowed to be in power this past 12 years.
I supported our troops in Iraq because they were just doing their job, but I never supported Bush. I have never believed his comment that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If they ever do find 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq, I will always believe our Government planted them to support what they kept telling us. I don't like this Bush any more than I liked his father and I don't believe anymore out of this Bush's mouth than I believed out of his father's mouth.
Now all they have to do is find Bin Laden and terminate him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Goldthorpe on Dec 15, 2003 17:10:15 GMT -5
Iran was taking a hard-line stance with regards to verifying their WMD capabilities, but after noting how easily Saddam fell, they thought otherwise. I doubt it would be that easily to do the same thing in Iran. Remember that Irak was a country with no aviation and completely starved by ten years of economic sanctions. The coalition had complete air supremacy as soon as the war started. Not exactly a powerful and prepared enemy. Iran, on the other hand, is doing well and have access to much better equipment. I think they even have a few F-14 still in service, as well as TOW missiles. And they have a lot of experience in defending their own territory against troops comming from Irak. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 16, 2003 10:26:11 GMT -5
I doubt it would be that easily to do the same thing in Iran. Remember that Irak was a country with no aviation and completely starved by ten years of economic sanctions. The coalition had complete air supremacy as soon as the war started. Not exactly a powerful and prepared enemy. Iran, on the other hand, is doing well and have access to much better equipment. I think they even have a few F-14 still in service, as well as TOW missiles. And they have a lot of experience in defending their own territory against troops comming from Irak. I don't know if the ecomonic sanctions really hurt Iraq as much as they'd like us to believe, GT. I can't say for sure, but if some reports are right, Syria was allowing aid into Iraq through it's boarders and it's hard to know just how much was getting through. As far as a conflict with either Iran or North Korea is concerned, I really don't like thinking about the possible ramifications of that. Talking weapons and tactics is a waste of time for we amateurs. However, the situation would almost certainly digress into a "who's next" type of scenario. If war was waged to oust Sadaam and his brutal regime, then why hasn't anyone of power developed the same scenario towards China or North Korea? Each of those countries is run by oppressive regimes. Human rights viloations, or just a lack of basic human privleges, are regularly documented throughout the international media. I have no doubt the sanctions on Iraq seriously depleted the basic resources people should have access to. But, Saddam and his sons had more money than they could ever spend in a lifetime. But, that money could have been better used to bring their country's standard of living up significantly IMHO. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 16, 2003 10:53:08 GMT -5
Hi Dis, I'm glad Saddam is finally in custody but it's about 12 years late in my opinion. This blight on the world should have been taken down when Bush's father was in office, but Bush Senior was a wus. Saddam was gassing his own people in experiements. He was worse than a dictator or tyrant. He should have never been allowed to be in power this past 12 years. I think everyone will be watching to see whether or not Saddam will be given a fair trial by his countrymen, or will he be subjected to a kangaroo court of sorts. I also believe many will be watching to see just how much American influence is involved in the proceedings as well. It may only take noticing an American official "overseeing" the process to bring out (mis)perceptions of influence. His family is already calling for an international trial rather than an Iraqi court. But, I think that would be disasterous. Israel has legitimate claims against him as do other countries. An international trial wouldn't go over well at all, IMHO. He should be tried by his own IMHO. Anything altering that would be internationally unacceptable. But, we're talking about the UN now. And the UN seems to be receptive to being dictated to nowadays. Another issue they can't afford to lose focus on. When Saddam's trial comes around, people will no doubt be distracted as they were during the OJ Simpson fisco. Once distracted, the issue will die down for a while until someone down the road invariably comes up with a "oh yeah ... what about this guy ...." People, or governments should have learned from 9/11; complacency and a lack of pro-action is deadly. cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Dec 17, 2003 1:13:29 GMT -5
I'm not sure Saddam's capture will change the frequency/destruction of the bombings in Iraq. I don't think they originated from Hussein's followers, but more likely from El Quaeda (sp?) units. Hussein was on the run and hardly likely to be in a position to orchestrate anything but his next dash. Nope, I think it's the EQ boys and it will keep on happening. Enough Muslims have an extreme view of the US that the perps will not be given up. And that means there will still be American boys being killed and that won't go over well in the homeland. After a short blip in his ratings, Dubby's public approval will look like Enron stock in its last year. The man does not pop up as the prime link in a 'miserable failure' Google search for nothing. He'll shoot himself in the foot again. Its inevitable.
The other approval factor has nothing to do with the war and everything to do with jobs. Even though the economy is picking up, the job numbers have not kept pace. It's all about jobs (not the economy) George.
|
|
