Stormig Posted December 20, 2003 Report Share Posted December 20, 2003 The invasion of Kuwait - I'm not sure that was suicidal. In fact, it was encouraged. Hint: April Glaspie. I also think the invasion was going to happen no matter what. I mean, we witnessed it. I'm gonna have to go back and check, but I really seem to recall as though all with the inspections was being carried out but then came the heat of Amerikanski drums rolling with the excuse that Iraqis weren't cooperating. ... and they had to leave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 21, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2003 You say that Saddam could easily avoid everything by letting the inspectors do their job. But why should he? Would you really let some CIA spies in your country? Because he had chemical weapons ... he used them ... then he made agreements with the UN and failed to live up to them. It was only after years and years and years of his bull that the US moved in to put an end to his madness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted December 21, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2003 The problem is that if they really cared about the Iraqi`s and if Saddam is really the person they say he is, they should have removed him 10 years ago. Better 10 years late than never, eh? Welcome to the board by the way! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted December 21, 2003 Report Share Posted December 21, 2003 Here's my theory: I think the Americans captured Saddam long before the day they announced it. I believe it was all too big of a coincidence and the clues to his hiding place were far to obvious. The Americans captured him some time ago and set up this scene in Tikrit to degrade Saddam. What do you think of my theory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted December 21, 2003 Report Share Posted December 21, 2003 I just heard on Washington today on TV that Americans are planning to put a off switch on Saddam’s microphone so whenever he says that “We” don’t like then bang! Silence…There goes Saddam’s chances of spilling the beans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops LONDON, : Saddam Hussein was captured by US troops only after he had been taken prisoner by Kurdish forces, drugged and abandoned ready for American soldiers to recover him, a British Sunday newspaper said. Saddam came into the hands of the Kurdish Patriotic Front after being betrayed to the group by a member of the al-Jabour tribe, whose daughter had been raped by Saddam's son Uday, leading to a blood feud, reported the Sunday Express, which quoted an unnamed senior British military intelligence officer. The newspaper said the full story of events leading up to the ousted Iraqi president's capture on December 13 near his hometown of Tikrit in northern Iraq, "exposes the version peddled by American spin doctors as incomplete". A former Iraqi intelligence officer, whom the Express did not name, told the paper that Saddam was held prisoner by a leader of the Kurdish Patriotic Front, which fought alongside US forces during the Iraq war, until he negotiated a deal. The deal apparently involved the group gaining political advantage in the region. An unnamed Western intelligence source in the Middle East told the Express: "Saddam was not captured as a result of any American or British intelligence. We knew that someone would eventually take their revenge, it was just a matter of time." - AFP Posted: 21 December 2003 1158 hrs Source Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 Crap there goes my theory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 23, 2003 Report Share Posted December 23, 2003 Holy cow... If true, that, like, confirms what Saddam's daughter had said to TV - that she was convinced it wasn't him, he wasn't himself, that he must've been drugged... Unless later they wove the story according to what she said - and why would they do that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 23, 2003 Report Share Posted December 23, 2003 If he weren't drugged, he would've shot at them -- or he would've done something else, acted differently. It was very uncharacteristic of him, the way he acted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted December 23, 2003 Report Share Posted December 23, 2003 Maybe he accepted his fate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 23, 2003 Report Share Posted December 23, 2003 Speaking of, when is Bush going to be arrested and brought in front of a tribunal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted December 23, 2003 Report Share Posted December 23, 2003 Speaking of, when is Bush going to be arrested and brought in front of a tribunal? Pretty soon, I hope... But right now he's quite busy with his campaign funds... he wishes Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) money had reached him and his pals sooner -- but right now he's praying (to his gods [money?]) that it reaches him before he's actually brought to the Hague for planned war crimes or the crime of war, whichever the case may be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph parikian Posted December 25, 2003 Report Share Posted December 25, 2003 Artical from Gibrahayer EDITORIAL S'A'DDAM SHAME BY GAREN YEGPARIAN What a week! Heydar Aliyev dies and Saddam Hussein is captured. And thereby hangs a tale. Besides the obvious initial snickers and comments--"What if it's one of Saddam's doubles they found," and the major effort required by some who suffered under Aliyev's tyranny to suppress whoops of joy at his demise, and besides the obvious benefit of having two tyrants less prowling the planet--there is a serious problem. One murderer is hunted at a cost of billions of US tax dollars in an illegal invasion. The other is given red carpet treatment in a top-notch US medical facility. Very fair, sensible, and understandable, right? The list of such US--mollycoddled-murderers is quite extensive: Pinochet, Idi Amin, take your pick of China's leaders, Pervez Musharaff, etc. ad nauseam and sometimes really strikes close to home, as in Aliyev's case. Why haven't we seen an "Operation Free Prometheus" (he was bound to the Pontic Mountains in Greek mythology, if I remember correctly) to rid Turkey of its wannabe Ataturk leaders, establish democracy for all residents of the country--especially the long suffering Kurds (the once and future Armenians), and implement the right of return of dispossessed Armenians to our homes? Ya think it might have something to do with the black stuff that both Iraq and (formerly) Texas ('til it was largely sucked dry) float atop? Maybe even the Shrub's connections with the oil industry? Or, could the Afghanistan escapade have something to do with a pipeline deal being worked to transport Central Asian oil to the south, specifically to circumvent and exclude Russia? What about the early saber-rattling against Iran, before the Wolfowitz(-less)es occupying the halls of US power realized that conquering, occupying, and subjugating Iraq wasn't going to be a cake-walk? Could that too have something to do with black gold? And of all these shows of US imperial might and arrogance, is it just possible they're designed to scare the Saudis into compliance with Washington's demands? Gee, guess what, Saudi Arabia has the world's largest proven oil reserves. Then, with all this oil lined up, Venezuela could be squeezed, through oil-pricing shenanigans, to bring to heel the hapless president who dares defy Uncle Sam's dictates and stands for his own people's interests. Another revealing phenomenon, though tangential to this article's topic, is the thinking that with Saddam gone, the anti-coalition (I gag and cackle every time this word is used in the present context) attacks will eventually ebb, possibly after an initial surge. The people just don't get it. They don't understand nationalism, not viscerally anyway. They don't understand human beings' deep hatred of occupiers. How else to explain everything being attributed to individuals vs. organizations/groups of people with shared ideas? With all this in mind, we're still supposed to take seriously the President's pontifications about liberty and such. It's a damn shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph parikian Posted December 25, 2003 Report Share Posted December 25, 2003 http://www.watan.com/img/1/sadam-cap.jpg Whats wrong with this picture remember that it was taken in mid december Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 25, 2003 Report Share Posted December 25, 2003 Yegparian's article was a pain to read... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted December 25, 2003 Report Share Posted December 25, 2003 (edited) http://www.watan.com/img/1/sadam-cap.jpg Whats wrong with this picture remember that it was taken in mid december I don't know what the winters in Iraq are like. Edited December 25, 2003 by gurgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accelerated Posted December 25, 2003 Report Share Posted December 25, 2003 Whats wrong with this picture remember that it was taken in mid december ....erm.....erm.....Christmas decorations? ....they did find Santa though, he wasnt too happy as there was still a week to go to Christmas..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 25, 2003 Report Share Posted December 25, 2003 BTW, how well do we know Sodamn Insane's personality to know how he woulda acted? Surely no-one has had the proximity to him that his daughter has had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted December 25, 2003 Report Share Posted December 25, 2003 All of you who have speculated on Sadaam fighting back and all this are way off the mark. Sadaam is the ultimate survivor - he is no hero - come off it get real. And haven't any of you heard of being in a state of shock - well its very much like being drugged. And regardless i don't see what changes things even if he was captured by Kurds...who really cares anyway. And of course - why should anyone be surprised if the capture is bled for all its PR worth - I mean here we are in the media age right - its all image and entertainment - and don't you think that Sadaam didn't fully understand this as well. Anyway - a merry Christmas too him - I mean I'm sure he is eating better and in general is much better off now than he has been the past few weeks - not that anyone should really care about his comfort. He's a brutal thug - a (former) menace - who certaily should havve been taken out 12 years ago...and though I disagree with how this campaign against him and against Iraq has been undertaken - and the various shifty rational...and the aftermath (and so on and so forth) - I certainly think it is a good thing that he is no longer in power and no longer terrorizing his people or gicving anyone else cause for concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 25, 2003 Report Share Posted December 25, 2003 who certaily should havve been taken out 12 years ago... Please go further back than that or infinitely far into the future... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted December 25, 2003 Report Share Posted December 25, 2003 Please go further back than that or infinitely far into the future... Is this some Domino trick universe question etc? LOL I was refering to when we (the coalition) was over there ousting him from Kuwait. I mean I understand all the rational why we disnt go...but it was pretty clear to me (and many) at the time - that allowing him to remain - was only going to become an issue for the future. Did we have to go in now - or was it right to - well I won't answer that - I think that there are all sorts of legitimate persectives - but fundementally I think we blew a good thing - we had Sadaam verymuch cowed - ineffective and where we wanted him...and now...well chaos basically...at least a much greater potential for it...and certainly more blood (and bad blood) to come..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 25, 2003 Report Share Posted December 25, 2003 They don't understand nationalism, not viscerally anyway. They don't understand human beings' deep hatred of occupiers. How else to explain everything being attributed to individuals vs. organizations/groups of people with shared ideas? I am sure they do understand it very well (maybe Bush is the only one who doesn't). They are just lying to everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.