by DevonMcBride 94 Replies latest social current
Outside of it being a moral boaster, I don't think the death of Saddam or his son will be the end of the retaliation strikes against the American soldiers.. For one thing there still was some support for Saddam in Iraq. Also these may just make them martyrs in the eyes of some Iraqi Muslims and make their resolve for retaliation even more. Time will tell but this is far from being over.
Will
One of the sons had 17 bullet holes from a previous shooting years ago, and they confirmed his body.
Now, lets get Saddam.
People can cry all they want to about the weapons of mass destruction, but just getting rid of Saddam and his sons from power was reason enough.
Has anyone really read what these guys are all about? Pure wicked. And just when you think they are as bad as you can think, they are worse. Evil died today.
Has anyone really read what these guys are all about? Pure wicked. And just when you think they are as bad as you can think, they are worse. Evil died today.
Yeah but it was the US under president Reagan that supported Suddam 15 years ago. When Saddam was allegedly killing all those Kurds in the late 80's, I think it was the American ambassador to Iraq at the time went to congress to have them put economic pressure on Saddam. It was finally turned down because of the almighty dollar. It wasn't until Saddam was seen as anti-American that they decided to do something about him.
Will
Good riddance to bad trash.
Amen !
This story has come out with interesting timing. Just when the heat has hit Blair and Bush regarding those elusive WOMDs, some "good news" has been released. A way of placating the masses so that they forget about the WOMDs for a while?
Will,
You said,
Outside of it being a moral boaster, I don't think the death of Saddam or his son will be the end of the retaliation strikes against the American soldiers.. For one thing there still was some support for Saddam in Iraq. Also these may just make them martyrs in the eyes of some Iraqi Muslims and make their resolve for retaliation even more. Time will tell but this is far from being over.
You're mistaken in that assumption, in my opinion. If the ones making the attacks are Bathe party loyalists, the capture of Saddam will bring and end to their hopes of bringing him back to power, and the attacks will start to fall off. More importantly, those who are still afraid of what will happen when Saddam comes back will no longer fear him, and will start to give up those making attacks on the US. However, if the folks making the attacks on the US or Religious nuts then the Capture of Saddam will have little effect. I do agree that this is FAR from being over. It took several years to settle down Germany after the war.
You also said,
Yeah but it was the US under president Reagan that supported Suddam 15 years ago. When Saddam was allegedly killing all those Kurds in the late 80's, I think it was the American ambassador to Iraq at the time went to congress to have them put economic pressure on Saddam. It was finally turned down because of the almighty dollar. It wasn't until Saddam was seen as anti-American that they decided to do something about him.
Our choices back then were NOT aiding Iraq, and letting Iran take over Iraq and install another Ayatholah Khomeinie, or aiding Iraq and hopefully stopping the tide of Shi'ite insurgency. Not much of a choice. You'll notice though, that we never gave Saddam enough aid so as to beat the Iranians, but rather, just enough to hang on.
Prisca
This story has come out with interesting timing. Just when the heat has hit Blair and Bush regarding those elusive WOMDs, some "good news" has been released. A way of placating the masses so that they forget about the WOMDs for a while?So is it your implication that we did this just to take heat off Blair and Bush? Or that they're making it all up? Or that the Coalition has known where these guys are since the beginning, and waited until they needed a good news story? Ya'll with your conspiracy theories are silly.
So is it your implication that we did this just to take heat off Blair and Bush?
Who's "we"?
Do you personally know the people who have supposed to have killed Saddam's sons? Are they really dead, or do we have to take the US Govt's word for it, just like we had to take their word regarding the WOMDs?
Or that they're making it all up?
I wouldn't be surprised. Or that this is "old" news, in that they've held off releasing this information until they needed something to give their war effort a boost.
Or that the Coalition has known where these guys are since the beginning, and waited until they needed a good news story?
What's possible is that Saddam's sons haven't been killed. Who of us would know for certain? By releasing the "news" that his sons are now dead, could be a ploy to take the heat off the current problems Blair and Bush have.
Ya'll with your conspiracy theories are silly.
Oh phooey. It's called healthy scepticism.
Prisca,
I have a one word answer to your post
"BULLSH*T!"
Without a shred of evidence nor a real reason other than political to doubt this you call into question the integrity of not just the President (who didn't make this announcement. Not just the three star general (who did make the annoucement) but also the integrity of every single person involved from the hightest ranking officer to the lowest paid private soldier. Not to mention the news reporters that were there.
Hey Prisca, why not go investigate whether or not it's true that Elvis and JFK are living in a homosexual marriage on an Island in the Carribean, that's why they faked their deaths ya know.
Oh phooey. It's called healthy scepticism.Bullsh*t, when there's REASON for doubt, that's called healthy scepticism, when you question EVERYTHING because you don't like the administration, that's called stupid.
Good riddence to two evil bastards.
According to CENTCOM's brieing this morning, the U.S. may be willing to display Uday, Qusay Corpses
