O/T Reality Check Sad and Insane May be Hung Soon

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Guys,

Yahoo says that Saddam Hussein may be hung soon. Hopefully, that means that troops will be heading home soon.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

His execution will do nothing more than satisfy Washington and exacerbate the situation in Iraq. We're there for the long, long run

[Archive]

Posted By: Cat

The reports are that hanging Saddam will not change anything so the troops won't be coming home.

Peter:

This is you ONE off-topic post. I you are on a calendar year basis for OT posts you will be alloted another on Monday (1/1/07), if you are on a rolling 12 month average for OT posts...well...you have a long time to wait.

A little military humor below:


________________

http://www.audiocomedy.net/soundboards/jacket.shtml

[Archive]

Posted By: steve f

What a way to go, -wouldn't be my first choice. Yea, I hope we can pass command off the Iraqi's quickly and bring our brave troops back.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Unfortunately my cousin is flying in a chopper over Baghdad every day. He and his wife just had a baby this past year and he was called back into the service after having been out for 4-5 years. He was one of the many afflicted with the mysterious Gulf War Syndrome after the 1991 war and lost over 80lbs after returning to the states. I hope he and all the troops will be coming home in 2007, but it sounds like Bush is pushing for more troops so it doesn't look like it's going to happen.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

No, it won't happen and the war will drag on for years. But for Saddam, the sooner they hang him the better. Of course, that might even create more violence as he still does have supporters.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

"But for Saddam, the sooner they hang him the better."

Did you really mean to say that?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I would rather see him rot in a cell next to Noriega. The last thing the US Military needs in Iraq is a Sunni Martyr. It will be even worse if he is executed on a US Military base. And what is the purpose of filming it??? Like that won't inflame any more violence.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dylan

You cant seriously think that Saddam being executed will have any influence on the current state of our troop numbers. The baath party is not in control of the government, and his execution is nothing but a sideshow to pretend that we've accomplished something. In reality his death will mean nothing, the insurgency isnt fighting for Saddam their fighting for their own interests.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Steve- do you want to see him "hang" around? What possible use does the world have for this madman?

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Dylan,

Your right on point. The fear here is that the Prez will start thinking that we are winning the war in Iraq and we're on our way to establishing democracy...which will mean more U.S. troops.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: joe brennan

The only way to win in Irag is to pull all our troups out now and let them have at it. It only took us 30 years to forget Vietnam. Those who don't learn by their mistakes are destined to repeat them.

In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

Do you guys all subscribe to the New York Times or what?

[Archive]

Posted By: steve f

Barry, I was referring to myself, with this osteoporosis, that rope jerk would be far too uncomfortable Actually, I'm surprised Sadumb's lingered this long. Why some hairtrigger private didn't drop a pineapple in that manhole two years ago eludes me.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Saddam's death will only cause a worsening of the Civil War in Iraq. It will, however, fulfill President Bush's Second reason for ACTUALLY going to war.

His First reason, was, obviously OIL, just like his Dad's reason in 1991. George the First said in 1991 it was about Democracy in Kuwait but after the war ended, what happened? Gas prices went down, American companies were given large contracts to clean up and rebuild Kuwait and HOW MANY Democratic elections have been held in Kuwait since 1991?

W's Second reason (wanting Saddam dead) relates to the Gulf War. During that war, Saddam said some mean things about George the First and I think I remember Saddam also issuing death threats against the President. After the war, many criticised Bush for not finishing the job and taking Saddam out of power. This obviously hurt little George W's feewings.

So, once it looked like he was going to be elected President in his own right, W and his henchmen (Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al) started planning a war with Iraq, the only problem, how to take action without looking like a bully? The answer dropped in their laps with the terrorist attacks. (That is why some conspiracy theorists say the US didn't act or might have even helped the attacks to happen).

I can't remember if it is International Law, United States law or just common sense, but I think there is a rule about not being able to kill a leader of a foreign country. This prevented W from an out-and-out assassination of Saddam. So, the next best thing would be to take over his country and then have the Iraqi justice system kill Saddam.

Once Hussein is dead, watch for some type of shift (maybe major) in foreign policy as far as Iraq goes because at that point, President Bush will have no more personal feelings about the situation because HIS goals will have been acheived; 1) to make his friends in the oil business even more money and 2) Saddam Hussein to be dead.


David

PS, Dan I know what you are talking about. My cousin had two weeks left in a semester in college when he was called to duty to fight in the Gulf War. The bad part was, he didn't leave the country for a month and just sat around with his Unit for that time. He lost out on that semester and didn't get a refund of his tuition. He fought in the war (he wont talk about what he saw or did) and then came back home. On top of having to retake the courses he missed out on, he also had Gulf War Syndrome to boot.

[Archive]

Posted By: anthony

i recently read that the military or pentagon (one in the same) have started up the "draft machine"...which to my understanding compiles a list of possible men/women in certain demographical areas. once they finish with the list, they target those areas with recruiters to build up our forces...it hasnt been used since 1999. i dont think this is a good thing for our future troops but regardless i will support them, our president and our country regardless of who is in charge.

Semper Fi
USMC - Cpl
1986-1991

edited to say that i wont get into it but i disagree with 98% of what david just wrote, sorry david but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Some of you guys sound a lot smarter when you're limited to discussions of baseball cards solely. As Clint would say, "A man needs to know his limitations." I'm sure the moment Bush gets the word that Saddam is dead he will have a press conference and suggest that the war has been won.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Jeff, wouldn't be the first time he's said it though, right....?

Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Brett

The Americans won't be leaving Iraq any time soon. If they pulled out, the country would have a civil war and be even more screwed up than it already is.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I get the NY Times delivered to my door every morning...good crossword puzzle. And the best news around (I know it is biased, that is why they invented the editorial page).

[Archive]

Posted By: joe brennan

The Americans won't be leaving Iraq any time soon. If they pulled out, the country would have a civil war and be even more screwed up than it already is.


SO?

In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Exactly Joe. It is time for the Iraqi people to stand on their own. Democracy is not handed out, it is earned.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Anthony, if there is any Draft or other military build up, I hope it is to go and take out the bad guys in Syria and Iran. Remove those trouble makers and the Middle East will calm down for a while. The United States should stop pussyfooting around and take care of the root of the problem over there.

Also, if they want to get Bin Laden, then they should drop a large nuclear bomb over those mountins in Afghanistan close to the Pakistani border. If it doesn't out right kill Bin Laden and his men, it might make them sick. It would also send a message to Pakistan to not harbor or aid and abet Bin Laden and his supporters.

David

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Dan,

Suppose Iraq doesn't want to be a democratic country. Remember, other middle east countries fear democracy more than anything. Would it be okay if Iraq reverts back to a dictatorship.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: joe brennan

I could care less what happens to Iraq AFTER we a long gone. As long as not one more American Child is killed in that cess pool it can fall off into the gulf for all I care.

In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

"Do you guys all subscribe to the New York Times or what?"

Just the editorial page. I get the headlines delivered via email daily, and usually all I have time to read are those editorial items that I don't have to pay extra for - and I'm still meaning to send in a check for those!

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Peter, I don't really care. Nation building is not the job of the United States Military. Our presence in the ME is nothing more than pouring fuel onto a fire. The best way to deal with the theocratic America haters is to ignore them. Stop buying their oil, stop positioning one country against another, stop selling arms to them...just plain stop. Instead of pouring my tax dollars into building schools for future America haters we should spend that money protecting our own borders.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I agree that if the Iraqis can't work out their own affairs and are set on killing each other, why should we care? They don't want a democracy; each faction just wants to wipe the other out. I say let them, and bring all those American kids home who are losing their lives and getting horribly maimed for nothing.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve f

David, I don't believe the a-bomb is a feasible option any longer. To many other countries have a red button now.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Steve,

True, but if the intelligence organizations have an area where they think Bin Laden is it would be a better option than sending in more troops to scour the (desolate) area trying to find him.

Then again, my idea rests on the concept that the United States has intelligence organizations that are capable, see WMD assertions before the Iraq War.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Barry, if only it were so easy to let the various bloodthirsty Muslim sects just kill each other off while we mind our own business. Alas, while a great theory, eventually one remaining bloodthirsty Muslim sect will fill the vacuum in the middle east, grab all the oil (i.e. money) and use the area as a launching ground against the great Satan, America.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Jeff,

That is exactly the problem the U.S. caused by destabilizing the area. The terrorists who use to be isolated radical factions within states now have the opportunity to dominate a country of their own. Bin Laden and other terrorists will have legitimacy and a platform for bashing the U.S. and rally other Islamic countries.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

No Jeff, it certainly isn't easy and in fact it is quite sad. But we are really helpless to do anything about it.

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

I think this is bigger than just Iraq. Some people feel it's WWIII and other people think we should just pull out of the whole region. Either way, get ready for some craziness.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Guys,

The hanging is set for 10 PM EST. Looks like Saddam is toast.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: anthony

not to cross borders or anything, but iraq is the least of our problems...north korea is a lot worse situation than the people are lead to believe... their president, leader or whatever he is...is truly insane, far more insane than saddam....

also, everyone with the exception of n. korea that has a "red button" is either an friend or a semi-friend... n. korea is neither and has no potential to be either, if the bomb is to be used anywhere it is on top of his house.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Hi Leon, how are you?...how's the weather in Dallas?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Peter, somehow I think the area's instability - permitting the likes of murderous muslim terrorists to run unchecked in their plots against American interests - existed prior to the war in Iraq. You've heard of 9/11, right?

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Jeff,

That's true to some extent. However, crazy as he is, Saddam was the one person who could control Iraq and keep the terrorists out.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Out of Iraq, maybe. But hindsight is 20-20, remember. Had Saddam not wanted to scare all the other Muslim countries in the middle east by making them think he had WMD - by refusing to allow the inspectors in to poke around - he wouldn't be swinging in a few hours. Certainly, Saddam's own bloodthirsty actions, although legendary even amongst other bloodthirsty despots in the Middle East, had no impact on terrorism directed at America and our interests.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

.....in your own words....."That is exactly the problem the U.S. caused by destabilizing the area."

WELL.....

Are you old enough to REMEMBER.....the Iran hostage of Americans in 1979 ?

Do you REMEMBER.....Sadaam attacking Kuwait in 1990 ?

Do you REMEMBER.....the 1993 attempt by terrorists to blow-up the Twin Towers in NYC ?

Do you REMEMBER.....our Marines murdered and dragged in the dirt in Somalia in 1993 by Al Queda
terrorists ?

Do you REMEMBER.....the two American Embassy bombings in Africa in 1996 ?

Do you REMEMBER.....the USS Cole being damaged with the loss of our precious Navy man in 2000 ?

Do you REMEMBER.....that terrorists on September 11, 2001 murdered 3000 people in New York City,
Washington DC, and Shanksville, PA ?

Do you REALIZE.....that all these tragic events occurred before we went into IRAQ ? ? ? ? ?

I am very interested in your answer to this last question ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Ted,

Your points are well taken. I'm only referring to Iraq. Because of Saddam's Dictatorship he was able to maintain control of Iraq and keep the terrorists out of power in Iraq. That's all I'm saying.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Dylan

In todays world we have smart bombs and precision strikes all to limit collateral damage. But let's remember in warfare an enemy has to be literally brought to its knees to stabilize a foreign occupation and government transistion. Fighting a war cannot be police work. It seems that we've learned little from Vietnam. The nature of warefare is a dirty business and it must be treated so. A fervent enemy must be completly and utterly destroyed. However warefare of that nature seems to be a thing of the past and now operating a police state is the humane but IMO ineffective strategy. Dethroning Saddam has done nothing but unleashed sectarian violence which was suppressed by Saddam due to his brutality. Now rival factions have been given the oppurtunity to fight and attempt to consolidate power in Iraqs new government which is unstable and decentralized. Did it ever occur to anyone that it takes an authoritarian regime to govern such a fractured country with old hatreds of one another? Unfortunatly the capture of Bin Laden will likely have little effect if any on the capacity of al queda. These guys work in a organizational structure of covert cells that is intended to limit the harm that can be done if members are captured and interrogated. Bin Laden has long had the oppurtunity to prepare for his eventual death or capture. Although a symbolic victory it would be, tactically little would be accomplished. I am optimistic that positive change can happen, but truths need to be addressed and not swept under the rug.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

The weather is crappy in Dallas. It's rainy and balmy. My personal belief on this matter is we should be happy Sadamn (sic) is going to hang and we should leave the region and let them all kill each other, if that's what they want to do. I was for the invasion at the time we did it but at this point it's a no win....again, we all have our views. Lets (see Barry no apostrophe ) keep this to one thread please....best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Uh-oh..."let's" has an apostrophe, short for "let us." Keep at it, you'll have it down before the troops leave Iraq

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Dylan, you're right in the sense that if we really wanted to 'win' the war, we'd drop a two ton bomb on the next crowd that forms to support Al-Sadr. And instead of being terrified of scratching a mosque or hurting someone who is hiding a terrorist in his house, we'd probably be better off cleaning house, so to speak, in all of the muslim/terrorist hot spots. But then we'd just anger the French and the apologists in America who actually can say with a straight face that the hanging of Saddam is a bad thing.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

My wife, or you, never told me of the "let's" being possibly "let us".....party foul...or in this case "apostrophe foul" .....that was bad...

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

You are forgiven (or should I say "you're" forgiven)

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Mmmh, interesting Jeff that you think only the French and a couple of apologists would find mass murder somewhat hard to stomache. I think if America indeed did drop massive bombs and killed tens of thousands of people at once - in some sort of strategic measure to further an ability to dominate a nation of different peoples, it would not have a single friend in the entire world who would stand shoulder to shoulder with them. Not Australia, not Israel, no-one in todays world belives in such indiscriminate slaughter. That you find it a good line of thinking is disturbing....
And, as I discuss with friends and family regularly, all one has to do is imagine a foreign force sitting on our red white and blue shores, militarily dominating the American people and running its goverment, and wonder how many young and old americans would be more than happy to blow themselves up in order to cause pain to the interloper. And we would all call them brave, and patriots, and not the adjectives we use to describe these fanatical nationalists we encounter in Iraq.
That they seem crazy in their religious and nationalist zeal shouldn't be a stretch, just imagine the rest of the world looking on to american t.v and viewing prayers by players before and after basketball and football games, actors thanking their god for the good fortune of getting golden statues, a president who says god has guided him in making these world decisions he so hopelessly fails at, and everywhere the red white and blue flags hang on cars, houses and government buildings, and the USA with a standing army over a million and with bases on every continent and country......

Saddam should die by his people's hands for his acts of murder and deprivation, but it would have been nice if his own people cared enough to bring him down themselves.
And 911? Gee, when will everyone leave 911 and Iraq as the 2 COMPLETELY seperate issues that anyone and everyone who has done any investigation has absolutely sworn to be the case. Bin Laden, Al Quieda, Taliban, Afghanistan. Saddam, Iraq, Oil and personal vendetta.

Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

Barry

The only thing I can contribute on a meaningful level to this thread is: shouldn't the verb in the title be "hanged" rather than "hung"?

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000278.htm

Yours apostrophetically,

Mack's