The BBC reports:
«Ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has been captured by US forces, says the US chief administrator in Iraq. "Ladies and gentlemen, we got him," Paul Bremer said at a news conference in the capital, Baghdad, prompting loud cheers from Iraqis in the audience.»
Nicely done! A better Christmas present, I couldn't ask for.
So, life will get better for the US economy, and therefore the world economy, and yet we will be no closer to preventing another Osama Bin Laden attack, at all.
The right thing happening for all the wrong reasons. {sigh}
Re:The sad part is...
WebDragon on 2003-12-14T19:50:40
Then again, those of us with an ounce of sense and who still remember that ol' Osama hasn't yet been captured or killed will tend to think differently and continue to hedge our bets.Re:The sad part is...
hfb on 2003-12-14T23:34:07
Why would Bush want to capture a Bin Laden when they sold the Austin airport to the family in the not too distant past...if one is to believe what one reads.Re:The sad part is...
jdavidb on 2003-12-15T05:19:01
The Binladen family in Texas has completely disowned Osama. It's something akin to my Egyptian friend Mr. Saad, who moved to this country last year and was telling me last week how people think it's funny to compare his last name to "Saddam." Something folks would rather just forget completely.
Re:The sad part is...
hfb on 2003-12-15T10:25:54
Family is family.Re:The sad part is...
jdavidb on 2003-12-15T17:22:46
And in this country family often abuses, kidnaps, runs out on responsibility, neglects child support, stays estranged for decades, and any number of other divides. What's your point?
Holding the American branch of Bin Laden's family as being partially responsible or even comparable to him through association is borderline racism. You might as well hold all Muslims responsible since they consider each other brothers.
Families often have black sheep.
Re:The sad part is...
pudge on 2003-12-17T00:04:08
What does that mean, "family is family"? Does it mean Bush won't capture/harm Osama Bin Laden because the Bin Laden family is friends of his? That's utterly ridiculous.
Re:The sad part is...
hfb on 2003-12-17T10:05:29
No, I'm saying that doing business with a family obviously connected to a terrorist, even prior to 911, seems questionable especially when politicians have been crucified for far less glaringly dubious business dealings. Ferraro was, as I recall, shredded for some barely shady business practices of her ex-husband, etc.Re:The sad part is...
pudge on 2003-12-17T16:44:05
No, I'm saying that doing business with a family obviously connected to a terrorist, even prior to 911, seems questionable especially when politicians have been crucified for far less glaringly dubious business dealings.
There's nothing dubious about the business dealings, that I've ever seen. There's no significant connection between Bin Laden's terrorist activities and the rest of his family, that anyone's ever put forth.
Re:The sad part is...
RobertX on 2003-12-14T22:00:41
That is an idiotic thing to say. No one that I know connects Saddam with 9/11. Everyone I know agrees we should have taken him down. It is unfortunate that Bush chose WMD as his reason. If he would have chose humanitarian reasons none of these conversations would be happening now.Re:The sad part is...
samtregar on 2003-12-14T22:12:51
True, given that we would have died laughing.-sam
Re:The sad part is...
RobertX on 2003-12-14T22:27:01
How so?Re:The sad part is...
samtregar on 2003-12-14T22:32:53
The idea that the current administration would spend billions of dollars purely for humanitarian reasons is, quiet frankly, hilarious. The reason Bush didn't say that is he knew no one would believe him!-sam
Re:The sad part is...
RobertX on 2003-12-14T22:33:51
Ah! Well there we would agree. : )Re:The sad part is...
chaoticset on 2003-12-14T23:23:25
It's an idiotic thing, but there are indications that it's what's going through some people's minds. Just because something's stupid doesn't mean plenty of people aren't willing to think it.Re:The sad part is...
mary.poppins on 2003-12-15T08:08:01
Everyone I know agrees we should have taken him down. It is unfortunate that Bush chose WMD as his reason.
The trouble is in the vagueness of the "we" you refer to. Everyone I know has the impression that someone should have gotten rid of this nasty dictator (and other ones!). The question is who this "we" is that is currently doing it. Neither you nor I have much control over what the US government does in Iraq at the moment.Not sad, because it's not true...
jordan on 2003-12-14T22:18:16
I think we're further away from another Al Qaeda attack.
Contrary to the dominant media meme, there are all kinds of things that link Hussein to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Remember Salam Pak? The terrorist training camp in Iraq where agents, including reportedly Islamic Fundamentalists, learned to take over commercial jet-liners?
Or, how about the fact that there's a lots of evidence linking Iraq to the WTC bombing in 1993. Also, the Son of Sheik Rahman, convicted planner of WTC 1993, later turned up as a top Bin Laden lieutenant in Afghanistan.
There's lots more evidence, if you are actually interested.
Why, it's just this week that we have a report that Muhammed Atta was in Baghdad working with Abu Nidal, under the auspices of Irai intelligence, in 2001 before 9/11. Recall that Abu Nidal "committed suicide" last year in Iraq, with two gunshot wounds to the back of his head... Seemed strange that Hussein would turn against someone he gave patronage to for over 20 years. Perhaps Nidal was suddenly a dangerous link between Al Qaeda and himself that had to be eliminated?
It's clear that the Sadam Fadayeen were working with Al Qaeda elements since the war. You might say that's because we drove them together, but that's not credible based on the above. In any case, if you saw the photos of Saddam, you'd see that Al Qaeda couldn't protect him from a relentless, exhausting persuit, and I think you'll find that the Al Qaeda leaders in similar condition now.
So, yes, I feel safer.
Re:Not sad, because it's not true...
educated_foo on 2003-12-15T00:11:02
I don't want to challenge your entire claim here -- I happen to disagree, but I'd have to do some research on the articles you cite, which requires time. However, your second and third paragraphs perfectly demonstrate two claims that have nothing to do with war in Iraq, but are used as justification. First, why is a country's having a terrorist training camp a reason to invade it? The US has produced its own wackos in Texas and Montana recently -- would Canada have had a right to invade and capture Clinton? To link "Iraq" to 9/11 in the right way, you need to show connections between 9/11 and the Iraqi government's actions, not just between 9/11 and a couple of random Iraqis.
Second, other than being aimed at the same target, what do the 1993 and 2000 bombings have to do with each other? Hussein's government being involved in the 1993 bombing is in no way inconsistent with, say, UN sanctions having made him impotent, or his having simply decided terrorism wasn't worth the trouble.
I'm curious to see how the latest Atta allegations play out, but I just haven't seen good evidence so far, and the two kinds of guilt-by-association or -analogy you mention don't cut it.Re:Not sad, because it's not true...
jordan on 2003-12-15T01:18:03
- However, your second and third paragraphs perfectly demonstrate two claims that have nothing to do with war in Iraq, but are used as justification.
Where did I mention justifications for going to war in Iraq? I don't see where I justified the war in Iraq, even once, in the post to which you are responding.
The issue at hand is whether I feel safer now. Now, you might infer a justification there and you'd be right. I happen to believe there were and are many many good reasons for going to war in Iraq. I've posted on this extensively and I don't really want to go into it now.
- The US has produced its own wackos in Texas and Montana recently -- would Canada have had a right to invade and capture Clinton? To link "Iraq" to 9/11 in the right way, you need to show connections between 9/11 and the Iraqi government's actions, not just between 9/11 and a couple of random Iraqis.
Read the articles, or I can provide more material, if you need it. The article links Iraqi Intelligence with Abu Nidal. It's well known that Abu Nidal ran a terrorist training camp in Iraq. Do you think that Hussein and the Bathist Regime didn't know about this and support it?
This is not the same thing at all as having terrorists training in your borders without the knowledge of the Government, as you seem to imply with your comparison.
- Second, other than being aimed at the same target, what do the 1993 and 2000 bombings have to do with each other? Hussein's government being involved in the 1993 bombing is in no way inconsistent with, say, UN sanctions having made him impotent, or his having simply decided terrorism wasn't worth the trouble.
I was trying to show that the same circle was involved in both acts. There's a lot of reason to believe that Bin Laden was also involved in some way to the 1993 bombings.
While it may be difficult to prove that Hussein was directly involved with 9/11, it's not difficult to believe, either. There's a lot of reason to believe it, actually, but most people act as if there's nothing whatsoever to tie them together.
Re:Not sad, because it's not true...
jdavidb on 2003-12-15T05:25:55
I happen to believe that if those who attack or threaten American consistently get themselves blown back to kingdom come we will in fact be safer because it will be much less likely for people to mount attacks against us. But what do I know -- I also believe swift, consistent punishment for crime will act as a deterrent. Apparently none of these ideas are in vogue any more.
Ironically, I'm a pacifist. I couldn't personally participate in these actions or directly condone those who do. But I've also got the sense to know that carrying a big stick makes you less likely to be attacked. Strangely, the anti-war movement seems to keep claiming that our actions will not have the desired effect of making us safer. I'm not opposed to war because I think it doesn't work; on the contrary, it seems certain to me that it does.
Re:Not sad, because it's not true...
mary.poppins on 2003-12-15T07:51:53
I'm not opposed to war because I think it doesn't work; on the contrary, it seems certain to me that it does.
For some value of "works." For establishing control over natural resources, and forcing people to do what you want, it works some of the time (that is, when things go "well"). As for generally improving the conditions of the people being "liberated" -- well, that depends on the attitude of the liberators' bosses. South Vietnamese who were liberated from the VC only to be rounded up into concentration camps didn't see much of an improvement. Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe was liberated by the Soviets, and ended up having a pretty bad time. In fact, Hungary and Czechoslovakia needed to be "re-liberated".
So it's a matter of what you think the attitude of the "liberating" bosses is. My understanding of things is that people controlling armies rarely have liberty as their main goal. There are exceptions, of course: most notably, the anarchist militias in Spain in 1936, and the Makhnovists in the Ukraine during the Russian Civil War. I don't think it is a coincidence that these military organizations were run in a directly democratic way by the soldiers themselves.
I'd feel a lot better about the US government invading places if the soldiers themselves were in control. Unfortunately, folks like brian d foy have to follow orders.Re:Not sad, because it's not true...
jdavidb on 2003-12-15T17:31:15
For some value of "works."
Very much agreed, and I meant for that to be implicit! I didn't mean war is the first or best solution to any problem. I guess what I really meant was "war CAN work." And in this case I believe this war will work to achieve the safety of Americans.
I wasn't really referring to working for liberation of Iraq. I believe that to be a side issue. If Americans simply wanted to liberate Iraq, they should have gone on their own as individual citizens. I believe the only thing that justifies the government getting involved is a compelling interest in ensuring the safety of the United States.
Also implicit was my assumption that the war be carried out by those with a philosophy of liberty for purposes of protecting their own liberty and not for purposes of conquest, expansion, profit, etc. I wasn't at all viewing control over natural resources or forcing people to do what you want as a just goal of war, since that is at odds with the philosophy of liberty. Like I said, I'm not saying ALL war works or that war ALWAYS works; just that when there are crazies trying to nuke your country, a war can be just the thing to stop them and discourage others from trying it.
Re:The sad part is...
pudge on 2003-12-17T00:02:57
So, life will get better for the US economy, and therefore the world economy, and yet we will be no closer to preventing another Osama Bin Laden attack, at all.
Just because people at large won't be thinking actively about Osama, that doesn't mean our government isn't. I heard the other day from a (former) Democratic candidate for President that the U.S. has diverted most of its terror-attacking resources to the war. It's not true. We are still spending craploads of resources on preventing another attack, on capturing the terrorists, and what's the problem if regular people go back to living their lives and don't think about it every waking moment?
I don't see a real problem here, unless you are just concerned that people will think we are more safe than we are, some problem with the country's metaphysical state of delusion. But that's nothing new; it's been that way in the U.S. since well before I was born.
