Saddam Captured

December 14, 2003 3:03 AM

Saddam Reported Captured - So what next? A trial at the International Criminal Court (which the US does not recognise), a trip to Cuba or a trial in Iraq? And is this finally the decapitation of the resistance in Iraq?
posted by brettski (388 comments total)

Of course it could be one of his doubles...
posted by PenDevil at 3:12 AM on December 14, 2003

I would like to see us treat him as a roman prisoner of war. Complete with big wooden carts, trips to cities, public beatings. Finish it all off with a public execution televised on paper view. Then we could donate the proceeds from the execution towards "rebuilding" iraq. The only reason i want this, is because this is the only way bush will not be reelected.
posted by sourbrew at 3:23 AM on December 14, 2003

That's amazing brettski - my first thought was "Where will he be seen next - the ICC or Guantanamo Bay?". There's really not much real news about this at the moment, but I assume links will be added here in time.
posted by Jimbob at 3:24 AM on December 14, 2003

big wooden carts, trips to cities, public beatings. Finish it all off with a public execution televised on paper view. Then we could donate the proceeds from the execution towards "rebuilding" iraq. The only reason i want this, is because this is the only way bush will not be reelected.

well reasoned. especially the "paper view" thing. kudos!
posted by quonsar at 3:26 AM on December 14, 2003

Paper view.
posted by Jimbob at 3:33 AM on December 14, 2003

Pike?
posted by Slithy_Tove at 3:35 AM on December 14, 2003

Heard an odd comment on ABC; they said that he was identified by DNA tests. The commentator wondered how the heck they could have been conducted in what amounted to "minutes" or "hours" since the capture, leading him to speculate that (perhaps) Saddam has been in our control for much longer than is being reported.

Who knows? These early reports are too fragmentary. Don't wanna start any rumors. Still, I noted several google news links that have reported concluded DNA tests (as opposed to pending ones). Odd.
posted by RavinDave at 3:36 AM on December 14, 2003

Foreign press including bbc, and the tv5 (french) are reporting that he has definitely been captured.
posted by sourbrew at 3:38 AM on December 14, 2003

Confirmed in fact by Blair.

I'm currently listening to 'The Zen Kiss' by Sheila Chandra. For some reason it's the perfect soundtrack.
posted by feelinglistless at 3:43 AM on December 14, 2003

bbc and tv5 - last one is in french
posted by sourbrew at 3:44 AM on December 14, 2003

French defense attorneys seen en route to Baghdad in a Concorde.
posted by dagny at 3:46 AM on December 14, 2003

This is very surprising. Let's see those DNA test results!
posted by nyukid at 3:47 AM on December 14, 2003

Reports are that the leader of the Iraqi Council has reportedly said DNA has proved it (via Newsnow)
posted by brettski at 3:48 AM on December 14, 2003

where is drudge on this?
posted by sourbrew at 3:51 AM on December 14, 2003

I'm with RavinDave. There's something odd about claiming the identity is verified by DNA tests. But, I'm certain this little tidbit will be glossed over by the media and an uncritical public. Or perhaps it is an uncritical media. Who knows?

Anyway, nice little feather in the cap for W. An imminent capture was predicted a week ago by Ray Lahood (R - Ill), which you can read about on Talking Points Memo.
posted by dpkm at 4:02 AM on December 14, 2003

He was captured in a cellar in Tikrit. There is no way that he could have been leading the "resistance". The violence will continue, maybe even accelerate.

This is Good news, though.
posted by hoskala at 4:04 AM on December 14, 2003

dpkm -- ABC now reporting that all this went down yesterday afternoon, so the DNA stuff is a "bit" more plausible. At least preliminary. That's the problem with fast breaking news, I guess.
posted by RavinDave at 4:05 AM on December 14, 2003

now we'll show that bastard what we do to people who knock down our buildings! w00t!
/douchebags
posted by quonsar at 4:08 AM on December 14, 2003

Paul Bremer opening words "Ladies and gentelmen, we got 'em" applause
posted by sourbrew at 4:13 AM on December 14, 2003

He should be put on trial for his ownership of WMDs. I mean, that was the reason for the war, right?

As long as he pleads not guilty he shouldn't have to worry.
posted by shepd at 4:15 AM on December 14, 2003

While it's got to be a relief to many Iraqis to know that Saddam Hussein is captured, the fun part might be what happens next.

If there is a trial, I would *LOVE* to see the evidence that Saddam's lawyer comes public with. How can the US explain away the fact that approximately 40 US personnel worked fulltime in providing Iraq intelligence to combat Iranian "human wave" attacks and that the casualty estimates they fed the Iraqis were dependent on the widespread use of chemical weapons?!

Which is, of course, why we will somehow not be privy to it. The trial *WILL* be a joke, and that fact won't be lost on the rest of the world. Who knows... maybe Saddam's meals will be delivered with rusty razor blades, piano wire, and strychnine pills on the side. Where's Jack Ruby when you need him?

Meanwhile, I hear there's a terrorist on the loose...
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:19 AM on December 14, 2003

You know what's saddest? They found an entire 3 guns and $750k with Saddam.

I know there's a lot more real Americans who have more of both that aren't having their homes raided...
posted by shepd at 4:23 AM on December 14, 2003

shepd: Somehow I don't think the guns and money was the sole reason for him being raided...
posted by PenDevil at 4:26 AM on December 14, 2003

Well, that's one unelected despot who won't terrorize the world anymore.
posted by Eloquence at 4:26 AM on December 14, 2003

I think i just heard on cnn that today is the official iraq independance day..... go american holidays whoot
posted by sourbrew at 4:27 AM on December 14, 2003

It's Iraq Independence Day? So the occupying troops must be pulling out, then...
posted by dpkm at 4:29 AM on December 14, 2003

Royal Flush?
posted by poodlemouthe at 4:32 AM on December 14, 2003

It's Lord Lucan, it's not Hussein.
posted by vbfg at 4:34 AM on December 14, 2003

I'm amazed they didn't fly GWB out there to get pictures of him "capturing" Saddam in front of a big Mission Accomplished banner.
posted by Outlawyr at 4:35 AM on December 14, 2003

Naturally, I saw it here first. I love this place...
posted by moonbird at 4:43 AM on December 14, 2003

So... um... when do we get to catch the person responsible for the NY/Pentagon attack? I'm pretty sure it wasn't Saddam Hussein, so I'm thinking Hillary was visiting the correct country, not George Dubya.

And if the violence does stop, does that mean we can turn our attention back to Afghanistan, where the Taliban is regrouping and things haven't gotten a lick better since we left to fight our holy crusade of personal vendetta against a man that had no weapons of mass destruction, and was only a risk to his own people.

If being a risk to his people is the evidence for attacking, why are the French/Canadian/German troops (odd bedfellows, yes, no?) not at the shores of NYC?
posted by benjh at 4:43 AM on December 14, 2003

You think we'll hear about Halliburton owing us, the US people 60 million again?
posted by sourbrew at 4:45 AM on December 14, 2003

1) Walter Matthau playing a drunken Santa Claus in a Vincent Gallo underground movie?

2) A spokesman arguing for the right to receive royalties from the Bum Fights website?

3) Nick Nolte booked yet again?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:01 AM on December 14, 2003

This changes everything!......

No, this changes nothing!.....

If I were Karl Rove, I would have been very tempted to hang onto Saddam until next September or October. But I suppose his capture was considered too crucial to the not-a-war effort in Iraq.

"He should be put on trial for his ownership of WMDs. I mean, that was the reason for the war, right?" Shepd, you know Sadda, could have done a lot of damage with three guns, and what's more - 750k could buy a tactical nuclear weapon!~


Attacks on US and allied forces will drop to between 1/3 and 1/2 of previous levels for a couple months before gradually increasing to pre-Saddam levels.
posted by troutfishing at 5:02 AM on December 14, 2003

So who got the $25 million?
posted by futureproof at 5:03 AM on December 14, 2003

Miguel's caption contest:

4.) Jerry Garcia's partially decomposed body was recovered today.
posted by RavinDave at 5:15 AM on December 14, 2003

karl rove is so cute in that barney reloaded movie, all tangled up in christmas lights! OMFG! ROFL + LOL!!!1! i just want to hug this administration!
posted by quonsar at 5:17 AM on December 14, 2003

does the video show bush dropping him again?
posted by sourbrew at 5:19 AM on December 14, 2003

Miguel's caption contest:

5.) "Sitting on a park bench, eyeing little girls with bad intent, hey Aqualung..."
posted by quonsar at 5:21 AM on December 14, 2003

Miguel's caption contest:

Rare color photograph by Mathew Brady of Walt Whitman attending an early rave club.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 5:23 AM on December 14, 2003

"We got him". "Red Dawn". "Wolverine Two". Good news - bad, bad scriptwriter!
posted by gdav at 5:25 AM on December 14, 2003

http://avina.best.vwh.net/sadam.mov

their movies of sadam
posted by demannu at 5:25 AM on December 14, 2003

Caption contest:

5) Tom Hanks recprises his role for the upcoming 2004 movie "Casted Away... Again" - in which his character decides that the best thing he ever did was talk to a Volley ball named Wilson 20 years after his first horrific plane crash.
posted by phylum sinter at 5:28 AM on December 14, 2003

them iraqi reporters sure are some kinda drama queens. jeebus.
posted by quonsar at 5:30 AM on December 14, 2003

corrected link.
posted by quonsar at 5:34 AM on December 14, 2003

How is showing video footage of Saddam undergoing a medical examination not humiliating and degrading, the sort of show footage that the Bush Administration were OUTRAGED about when it was American GIs on Iraqi TV screens?

You'd have thought the head of state of an occupied nation would have at least some protection from the Geneva Convention ...

Mind you, on BBC News 24 an anchorman was reporting that the Geneva Convention no longer applied as there was no war ... um, Hello? Occupied nation?
posted by kaemaril at 5:41 AM on December 14, 2003

What's that trackback...."Blogs for Bush" - do they even read these thread comments?

Anyway - Now GW Bush can call up Saddam, in his cell, or just send him snarky little notes : "Yo Saddam. GW here. That's what you get for trying to mess with my dad. So how do you like being a guest in my fine American hotel ? The bill's on me. Asshole."

If Iraqi politics resembled American politics, Saddam could now exit stage left - after a long and successful career as a tyrant and a mass murderer - and lay low for a year or two, like Henry Kissinger after tacitly condoning mass murder in Chile and ordering the "secret" bombing of Cambodia, to reemerge as a commentator on CNN and a regular guest on "Firing Line".
posted by troutfishing at 5:45 AM on December 14, 2003

kaemaril:
You seem to labour under the misconception that leaders will actually give a damn about laws when they do not suit their goals.
posted by spazzm at 5:45 AM on December 14, 2003

spazzm: I labour under no such misapprehension. Certainly not with George Bush around, anyway. However, most governments do at least try to give the impression that they are working within the framework of the rule of law (and by "law" I include international treaties...)
posted by kaemaril at 5:49 AM on December 14, 2003

"on BBC News 24 an anchorman was reporting that the Geneva Convention no longer applied as there was no war..." - kaemaril, now that you mention it, isn't the US supposed to be now in perpetual war, a War on Terror™ which will go on until the last terrorist is ferreted out of the last hole (which means basically forever) ?
posted by troutfishing at 5:50 AM on December 14, 2003

troutfishing: pretty much. A much, much longer version of Bill Hick's "Persian Gulf distraction" :)

However, it was my understanding that an occupied nation was still privy to Geneva Convention protection, even if there's no "state of war" --- otherwise what's to stop one country declaring war, immediately invading, declaring the war over and doing all sorts of nasty things that are contrary to convention?
posted by kaemaril at 5:56 AM on December 14, 2003

6) David Bellamy captured in Iraq
/britfilter
posted by chill at 5:56 AM on December 14, 2003

...what's to stop one country declaring war, immediately invading, declaring the war over and doing all sorts of nasty things that are contrary to convention?

exactly what rummy was thinking...
posted by quonsar at 5:58 AM on December 14, 2003

chill: LOL. I wonder how many non-Brits will get that?
posted by kaemaril at 6:00 AM on December 14, 2003

7)

Karl Marx
posted by sourbrew at 6:00 AM on December 14, 2003

Laws only work where there are a framework in place to enforce them. Right now there is no one that can seriously threaten USA with military action - therefore Bush can wipe his butt with the Geneva convention. The only ones that can enforce the rules of war now are the american voters, and that doesn't seem very likely.
posted by spazzm at 6:03 AM on December 14, 2003

And yes, what's with the talkback posts?
posted by spazzm at 6:04 AM on December 14, 2003

How is showing video footage of Saddam undergoing a medical examination not humiliating and degrading, the sort of show footage that the Bush Administration were OUTRAGED about when it was American GIs on Iraqi TV screens?

Well, I thought that we were dealing with a skeptical Iraqi public, which needs to know that the dictator that tormented them for decades is in custody. Actually, I would like to just drop Sadaam off in the center of Baghdad, and let the Iraqi mobs deal with him, or hand him over to the Kurds. He will receive a much fairer trial than Iraqis received under his dictatorship, and much fairer than he deserves.

This is a good morning, everyone.
posted by Durwood at 6:08 AM on December 14, 2003

I am curious to see if Bush even makes a comment on this, since he did make that statement about Saddam being irrelevant earlier this year.
posted by romanb at 6:09 AM on December 14, 2003

Durwood: 1) You don't need to show somebody having their beard checked for lice to verify their identity. 2) I have no doubt whatsoever that Saddam Hussein's trial will be the biggest kangaroo court seen since ... well, since they invented the concept. How on earth will he get a fair and impartial trial in a country that he's terrorised for decades? If I were his defence lawyer, the first thing I'd want is a change of venue. That's assuming he's even given an experienced lawyer. 3) EVERYBODY deserves a fair trial, even scum like Saddam.
posted by kaemaril at 6:17 AM on December 14, 2003

This is a good morning, everyone.

Why is that, precisely?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:19 AM on December 14, 2003

Merry Christmas!
posted by Busithoth at 6:19 AM on December 14, 2003

Now that Saddam is captured, it's likely that demands for US troops to leave Iraq will increase, which is bad when you consider the following...

"It won't affect (attacks) by Iraqi or Arab mujahidin and might increase them because those who did not want to be branded as supporters of Saddam might now join a resistance with a more nationalist dimension."

Mustafa Alani, Royal United Services Institute, London
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:26 AM on December 14, 2003

Photoshopped.

The search for WMD goes on, with Saddam's help.

Saddam is punk'd!

Saddam Claus
posted by wackybrit at 6:30 AM on December 14, 2003

great news for bush, et.al. bad news for dems.

still, i'm glad he's caught. the photos themselves are well worth the wait. :)
posted by poopy at 6:30 AM on December 14, 2003

Well, when my daughter learned the news her first reaction was "This rocks!"

It's good news. There are a few Iraqi families that would like a word with this fellow. I agree with whoever said he should be handed over in downtown Baghdad. The Iraqi people were the ones who suffered under him, and they deserve to get to deal with him.

Right now justice for the Iraqi people is all I care about. The rest will be sorted out one way or another.

One down, one to go....
posted by konolia at 6:37 AM on December 14, 2003

konolia: Justice? Sounds more like you're advocating a lynch mob.
posted by kaemaril at 7:01 AM on December 14, 2003

OMG! They found Kevin Kline!
posted by PrinceValium at 7:02 AM on December 14, 2003

This is great news for morale and public support. Especially after the debacle with the sons being killed, it's particularly good news to hear that Saddam is alive. Nothing is more important now than trying him publicly before an international body.

Actually, not entirely true. What's most important is stopping soldiers from being killed, and as some have noted already I don't think this will stop that from heppening in the long run... I hope that this celebration doesn't make the army feel like less security needs to be taken. This capture doesn't change the fact that 400 soldiers are dead but I certainly hope it prevents another 400 killings.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:07 AM on December 14, 2003

An imminent capture was predicted a week ago by Ray Lahood (R - Ill), which you can read about on Talking Points Memo.
This is the thing--did we get him earlier? is it really him, or a double? Will the DNA test be released? Will he be tried, or hung by his thumbs in a public square? Will the attacks on us stop? (that one's a no)...and more importantly, where's Osama?
posted by amberglow at 7:40 AM on December 14, 2003

According to the NY Times, Bush is going to speak at noon. To me, this means football is going to be pushed back. Couldn't they have announed the capture last night? Reminds me of when they started attacking Afghanistan and he announced that on noon on Sunday. This man seriously has something against me and watching my football.
posted by graventy at 7:45 AM on December 14, 2003

Well, we got him. Now what do we do? We can put him on trial, but that would backfire, since he's not guilty of the things we went to war over. We could shoot him in the head, but that would make us look even worse then we do now. We could turn him over to an Iraqi court, but it's obvious Bush & Co doesn't trust them at all. We could turn him over to a world court, but the world hates us, so that's not likely to go well.

Capturing Saddam alive is the worst thing that could have happened to Bush. The administration's record of dealing with these types of things is overwhelmingly bad. So far the solution seems to be holding people forever in secret without trial. Is that what we'll do here? Just carry around this albatross forever?

And what will we do about the violence if it continues? It will now be obvious to everyone that the attacks have nothing to do with Saddam and are here to stay. In other words, we can't stop the attacks., and our attempts to rebuild Iraq will continue to be a quagmire. Success depends on winning hearts and minds, and we don't seem to be doing that on a deep enough level.

So. We got him. The fun part for Bush is over. The quagmire continues. Our troops, and the Iraqi people continue to get screwed.
posted by y6y6y6 at 7:48 AM on December 14, 2003

I still don't know why we went to Iraq.
posted by mcsweetie at 8:04 AM on December 14, 2003

I know he more than likely didn't have anything to do with 9/11 and that the war is a waste of American and Iraqi lives, but at the same time Hussein is a vile son of a bitch and I'm glad he's been found. If he's either executed or imprisoned forever, it certainly wouldn't break my heart, but I won't break out the party hats until Osama's brought in, and I'm not holding my breath for that anytime soon.
posted by jonmc at 8:09 AM on December 14, 2003

Has anyone considered the tinfoil hat possibility that the strange trackback reaction to this (utterly inevitable, once the news broke) thread could be by design?

Just sayin'.
posted by cortex at 8:13 AM on December 14, 2003

throw him back.
posted by quonsar at 8:13 AM on December 14, 2003

y6y6y6 :"We could turn him over to an Iraqi court, but it's obvious Bush & Co doesn't trust them at all."
If the cable news outlets are correct that is exactly what we are going to do.
posted by MikeMc at 8:15 AM on December 14, 2003

"I still don't know why we went to Iraq"

I STILL DON'T KNOW WHY SO MANY PEOPLE ARE MORALLY BLIND; PATHOLOGICALLY HATE THE PRESIDENT; AND THINK BEING LEFT OF CENTER MEANS NEVER USING THE MILITARY, EVEN TO REMOVE AN AGENT OF EVIL. TRULY TRAGIC.

Yeah! No more Saddam!
posted by ParisParamus at 8:19 AM on December 14, 2003

another caption: Santa was arrested today for dui, during his traditional pre-Xmas bender. Reporters noticed the Grecian Formula used to hide his appearance. ; >
posted by amberglow at 8:22 AM on December 14, 2003

The world's largest and most expensive military captures a dictator of a nation with a fouth-rate military.

It was going to happen eventually, but I sure as hell don't remember this war being sold to me as a humanitarian mission. Again, where are the nukes? The other WMD? The 'mushroom cloud' line Bush and Coni kept saying.

Hopefully, this will stabilize Iraq, but if it doesn't then we can't blame Saddam for masterminding insurgents and will have to admit the attacks may be something of a popular movement. Time will tell.
posted by skallas at 8:23 AM on December 14, 2003

and go tell it to Taiwan, or the North Koreans, or any of the millions and millions of people on earth who live under dictators, Paris
posted by amberglow at 8:23 AM on December 14, 2003

Amberglow: your depravity speaks for itself. You should move to France.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:26 AM on December 14, 2003

Taiwan? WTF?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:27 AM on December 14, 2003

I STILL DON'T KNOW WHY SO MANY PEOPLE ARE MORALLY BLIND

Points to the past when the US of A installed the Shaw in Iran rather than let the democracy happen.
Points to Rwanda
Points to the Columbian death squads
Points to Guatamalian death squads.

Points at ParisParamus and asks "And your excellent moral vision is focused where?"

If you are going to claim 'these actions are justified on moral grounds' then why inaction elsewhere?
posted by rough ashlar at 8:27 AM on December 14, 2003

oh, I get it now. I just needed to see it in all caps. thanks.
posted by mcsweetie at 8:30 AM on December 14, 2003

Hopefully, this will stabilize Iraq, but if it doesn't then we can't blame Saddam for masterminding insurgents and will have to admit the attacks may be something of a popular movement.

Which means what exactly? That they should be tolerated?

Again, I don't think the war is the right thing to do right now, but I can't say I have any sympathy for the bastard.

On preview: lay off the personal attacks, Paris. I've met amberglow. He's about as depraved as a ice cream social.

rough ashlar: I'm just asking, but a lot of people point to dictators in other countries as part of their arguments against the war, but I always wonder what they mean exactly. It's obviously meant to show that Bush's motives are suspect, and they are, but are they saying we should send troops to those other nations as well? or are they saying that lots of people live under tyrants and it's no big deal?
posted by jonmc at 8:34 AM on December 14, 2003

The world's largest and most expensive military captures a dictator of a nation with a fouth-rate military.

well, yeah, but considering that the largest and most expensive military runs windows and uses MSChat to coordinate battlefield communications it's really a wonder it was able to pull this off at all.

and check out the neoblogs willya?!?! i haven't seen this much morning wood since my boy scout jamboree! why, you'd think chimpy single-handedly wrassled hussein out of his hole, thereby ensuring the next thousand years of glorious trickle-down crapitalism! what a h00t!
posted by quonsar at 8:43 AM on December 14, 2003

"It's scary how well Michele can guess the reations from the tin foil hat brigade at DU and Metafilter. I've got 6-8 inches of snow on the driveway..." (trackback comment)

- Ahh, right wing ad-bloginem attacks. So predictable really.
posted by troutfishing at 8:44 AM on December 14, 2003

caption: US CAPTURES SANTA, RUINS CHRISTMAS
posted by Ptrin at 8:47 AM on December 14, 2003

Wow. I've never seen so many people tripping over themselves to try to cast a negative light on so positive a development. And for no good reason other than your hatred for Bush.

If you anti-war (or, more to the point, anti-bush) people were actually as concerned about the Iraqi people as you claimed to be, you'd realize that this is good news. The man continued to cast a shadow over the people he had previously enslaved, and as long as he was at large it was always going to be there. This is a great victory for a reborn nation. Saddam will be tried by his own people, and his shadow can finally be lifted.

But no, because this development has the side effect of being stragically beneficial to the Bush administration, you're all lining up to do your best to shit all over it, even against any shred of rationality or decency. This goes beyond "far left MeFi contingent". It's just pure bile and hatred now.
posted by tirade at 8:48 AM on December 14, 2003

Wow. Teach me to go to sleep, huh? Good news! And what jonmc said about wars and bastards.

I'm curious to see if this gets translated into a politically convenient excuse to cut and run, and I wonder how they're gonna handle his capture.
posted by furiousthought at 8:50 AM on December 14, 2003

> I STILL DON'T KNOW WHY SO MANY PEOPLE ARE MORALLY BLIND

Now now, Paris, don't overexcite yourself; remember where we are, and why we visit voluntarily. Checking out the political wit and wisdom around here supplies the same guilty pleasure as watching a one-legged flag hater trying to climb a flagpole. You go, guy, you'll be effective one day if you just keep trying, hee hee hee.
posted by jfuller at 8:55 AM on December 14, 2003

Yeah! No more Saddam!

Yay! PP's back!
posted by hama7 at 8:56 AM on December 14, 2003

OMG! They captured Moses! You bastards!
posted by moonbird at 8:57 AM on December 14, 2003

Well, when my daughter learned the news her first reaction was "This rocks!"

And your daughter is...? A foreign policy analyst? A military strategist? The wife of a serviceman? A voter? Help us appreciate this ringing endorsement.

Tirade I agree that everyone should be seeing some good in Hussein's capture. I wonder if you can help us understand how the Iraqis will try him, what without a constitution and legitimate courts and all. Or shall we just try him under his own laws. But wait, he was bad, so can the laws of a bad man bring justice? Such a conundrum!
posted by holycola at 9:01 AM on December 14, 2003

Wow, tirade. You rock. Well said.
posted by TheFarSeid at 9:02 AM on December 14, 2003

"...even against any shred of rationality or decency."

Whoah there cap'n....calm down now or you'll blow a gasket.

Since it's now officially unpatriotic to wonder about the ramifications of capturing Saddam, and since humour is now punishable by summary execution, can you recommend an appropriately patriotic "We got Saddam!" party I can attend?

I would rush into the street and fire my kalashnikov in the air, but I don't own one. Do you think it would be as patriotically celebratory if I just threw some rocks around in my backyard?
posted by troutfishing at 9:08 AM on December 14, 2003

Jon mc

a lot of people point to dictators in other countries as part of their arguments against the war, but I always wonder what they mean exactly. It's obviously meant to show that Bush's motives are suspect, and they are, but are they saying we should send troops to those other nations as well? or are they saying that lots of people live under tyrants and it's no big deal?

I think that the main argument that i have at least against this kind of military action is that this is the kind of action that creates future osamas. We drop a bomb with USA printed on its ass on one house to many, little kid grows up eyes filled with hate. Sometime in the future he becomes a man, remembers that american flag missile that killed his mom, iced his dad, made a pile of ashes out of the arab version of sparky, and he finally realizes that he is plenty pissed.

That said I'm glad that we got Sadam. I think it will help out the Iraqi people, what i am not happy about is that it gives support to the American idea that regime building works. I would not like to see America invest lots of its time in foreign countries attempting to rebuild the economies one after another.

Furthermore I am upset about it because it will help immensely with Bush's chances at reelection. He has already done much to undermine civil liberties and christianize our nation. Hell i might be a bleeding heart liberal, but somehow i don't see our founding fathers approving of our countries current trend towards big government and far reaching foreign policies.

I think mostly liberals are not mad because we are helping Iraq and not helping others, i would even wager that most people think that IF we can affect change in Iraq that would be a good thing. I think the left is mad because we are messing up our international relations, involving ourselves in what could be an endless stream of regime changes, and taking away the "certain inalienable rights" of our citizens at an alarming rate.
posted by sourbrew at 9:08 AM on December 14, 2003

I wonder if you can help us understand how the Iraqis will try him, what without a constitution and legitimate courts and all

...since when has that stopped any nation?
posted by aramaic at 9:10 AM on December 14, 2003

> And your daughter is...?

Try "the future."


Oh, and we're watching this with a bright beady eye to see if it is too good to be true. Fuller carefully reserves the horselaugh , pending confirmation.
posted by jfuller at 9:10 AM on December 14, 2003

So predictable really.

A predictable as predicting explicitly the contents of this thread?

So prescient, really.
posted by hama7 at 9:11 AM on December 14, 2003

"I STILL DON'T KNOW WHY SO MANY PEOPLE ARE MORALLY BLIND"

I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW PEOPLE CAN'T SEE HOW BAD THIS WHOLE THING HAS BEEN FOR U.S. SECURITY. HELLO??? WE ARE BANKRUPTING OUR COUNTRY *AND* FUELING MORE TERRORISTS.

WE'VE GAINED NOTHING, AND NEITHER HAVE THE IRAQI PEOPLE. FOR BUSH IT'S MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. FOR EVERYONE ELSE IT'S WORSE THAN BEFORE WE INVADED.

Can we stop yelling now?
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:11 AM on December 14, 2003

...and he was hanging above the thames all this time in plain view... of everyone!

upon his capture: "I really want people to understand why I did it," he says. "I didn’t do it to make money. I’m not saying I’m out of pocket but I didn’t come out with very much because it cost so much to do this. I did it because I wanted to rid myself of everything that my life is about. I have two mobile phones. I read the newspapers every day. I’m always moving and rushing and I wanted to cut myself off and think and see what limits I could push my body to." :D
posted by kliuless at 9:12 AM on December 14, 2003

Taiwan (for paris)

And what everyone above said, but it's about being coherent too (morally and otherwise), especially if you're justifying our invasion and occupation on moral grounds...We "liberate" Iraqis, yet don't do a thing for the people in North Korea, or a million other places (and even fund death squads as mentioned above), and now are moving away from our longstanding defense of Taiwan (a very fragile place)...I guess we only do it when it's easy enough, and they have oil? and thanks, jon, but i know it's not me who's depraved and baying for blood, but paris
posted by amberglow at 9:12 AM on December 14, 2003

And your daughter is...? A foreign policy analyst? A military strategist? The wife of a serviceman? A voter?

Whatever dude! It like totally rocks! Party on!
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:13 AM on December 14, 2003

> Do you think it would be as patriotically celebratory if I just threw some
> rocks around in my backyard?

You got a French consulate up there in the People's Republic? Sorry, trying very hard to restrain the caveman triumphalism...
posted by jfuller at 9:15 AM on December 14, 2003

Here, here tirade!

The scenes of the Iraqi people celebrating bring tears to my eyes. They're nightmare is over and some of you here probably think they're pain is nothing compared to yours living under Bush.

The anti-war left is a infectious branch. The Democratic party must soon prune it from it's tree or the whole party will die.
posted by Mick at 9:16 AM on December 14, 2003

> involving ourselves in what could be an endless stream of regime changes,

You say that like it's a bad thing.
posted by jfuller at 9:16 AM on December 14, 2003

Let me summarize:

1) This is great news for Iraq, in that a horrible dictator is finally, officially out of commission.

2) This is terrible news for the US, in that it will be used as re-election ammunition by GWB et al.
posted by gottabefunky at 9:17 AM on December 14, 2003

but are they saying we should send troops to those other nations as well? or are they saying that lots of people live under tyrants and it's no big deal?

Both. And Neither.

If you are going to say 'this Saddam was a bad man, and needs to be stopped' you need to be willing to stand up to the other 'bad men' of the world also, if you wish to appear morally consistant.

Governments don't stand well on morals. You have the US of A's actions across the world as an example of 'do as we say, not as we do.' and you have Governments based on religious morals and what they have done. The Taliban as a 'current' example.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:18 AM on December 14, 2003

I wonder if you can help us understand how the Iraqis will try him, what without a constitution and legitimate courts and all.

I assume it's fairly likely that there will be by the time Saddam goes to trial. You don't go to trial the day you're charged in the US, especially with high-profile cases, so I wouldn't expect that to happen in Iraq.

Since it's now officially unpatriotic to wonder about the ramifications of capturing Saddam, and since humour is now punishable by summary execution

"Wondering about the ramifications"... I see... That's what it is, now, eh? And some light humor, too? No, I think my prior characterization of the last 80 or so posts was more correct. Read them again. It's all just venom. There's so much thinly veiled anger at this success that it'd be almost comical if it weren't so revolting.

Way to go with the hyperbole, tho. Unpatriotic? Execution?
posted by tirade at 9:19 AM on December 14, 2003

Bush on TV just now: once again he tied the War on Terror to the events in Iraq. When are we going to get off that merry-go-round?

The capture of Saddam, I hope, can bring some measure of relief to the Iraqi people and I congratulate those involved in the effort.
posted by Dick Paris at 9:22 AM on December 14, 2003

jfuller

> involving ourselves in what could be an endless stream of regime changes,

You say that like it's a bad thing.


If i thought we could do it with out creating more terrorists i might not think it was a bad thing. Sadly history seems to say that we generally are pretty bad at regime changes. Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, Columbia, Afghanistan most recently.
posted by sourbrew at 9:22 AM on December 14, 2003

Ahh, right wing ad-bloginem attacks. So predictable really.

As predictable as this left wing ad-bloginem attack, huh?
posted by Dennis Murphy at 9:26 AM on December 14, 2003

AP is reporting large explosions in central Baghdad, by the Palestine Hotel.

On preview, CNN has live video.
posted by Vidiot at 9:26 AM on December 14, 2003

Oh and the (palestine hotel?) just blew up in baghdad, no links as of yet.
posted by sourbrew at 9:27 AM on December 14, 2003

doh
posted by sourbrew at 9:27 AM on December 14, 2003

Taiwan (for paris)

Taiwan, for all intents and purposes, is a democratic country. I should know, I was born and grew up there and certainly never felt like Taiwan was part of China.
posted by gyc at 9:29 AM on December 14, 2003

hehe, i like hama7's link. then again, how could someone NOT be able to predict the reaction here? then again, i guess that's the point.
posted by poopy at 9:29 AM on December 14, 2003

...certainly never felt like Taiwan was part of China.
Well, our president certainly feels differently, matching his rhetoric to the Chinese view of "One China."
posted by amberglow at 9:35 AM on December 14, 2003

i have this strange feeling that many people here are hoping for the worst from the recent bombing. just a hunch.
posted by poopy at 9:36 AM on December 14, 2003

mostly just expecting it all morning. I was kind of hopping the iraqis would start stoning terrorists in the street.
posted by sourbrew at 9:38 AM on December 14, 2003

Reuters is now reporting that Iraqi police say the explosion was caused by fuel canisters on the truck, not explosives.

The timing and location (the Palestine Hotel is on the same street as the French embassy and many international news organizations) seem suspicious, however.

Al-Arabiya TV is reporting several more explosions. Interesting developing story.
posted by Vidiot at 9:46 AM on December 14, 2003

And your daughter is...? A foreign policy analyst? A military strategist? The wife of a serviceman? A voter? Help us appreciate this ringing endorsement.

You miss the point! It means konolia is a mother, and so, when she calls for mob violence, and cathartic hate it doesn't seem quite so bad. It's slightly upsetting to me that your moral system precludes you from lying to an insurance company while letting you freely advocate a complete disregard for justice, international law, human compassion, and everything Jesus taught.
posted by rhyax at 9:51 AM on December 14, 2003

Ya know, this sucks. Yesterday I bought four copies of Where's Saddam? to give out as Christmas gifts, and now all the funny is gone.

You probably think I'm kidding, but I'm really not.
posted by dogmatic at 9:54 AM on December 14, 2003

well, if you're lucky dogmatic, maybe they'll come out with a 'Free Saddam' card game.
posted by poopy at 9:58 AM on December 14, 2003

> The timing and location (the Palestine Hotel is on the same street as the
> French embassy and many international news organizations)

Trout, congratulations on the fast travel, I'm awed, but shame for overreacting. Just wave your flag where you are and maybe burn a sparkler, that will be quite sufficient. You could hurt somebody!
posted by jfuller at 9:59 AM on December 14, 2003

wow, we are all so stupid and predictable.

it's amazing that with so many discussion forums no doubt buzzing about this, mefi is the only one that fits the predictions.

god, we love terrorists and hate bush. thats the only reason why we're not popping like 15 boners a minute, dude.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:00 AM on December 14, 2003

Well... finally. Now maybe they can go back to looking for Osama bin Laden.
posted by RylandDotNet at 10:01 AM on December 14, 2003

Funny, in here at MeFi it's all about Equivocating. Good, but.

General Clark (my new fave of the Democrats) says, instead, "Mission well done, Troops."

The Hague - "I could not be prouder of the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces for capturing this horrible despot. This is a testament to their courage and determination. I'd also like to congratulate Lt. General Sanchez and the intelligence community for the crucial role they played. We've been due good news from Iraq and the world is a safer and better place now that he is in custody."

He could get the Clinton middle with thoughts like that. And he could get the Warbloggers, with thoughts like that. (Not that they're a big contituency, but they're opinion leaders, as many more people read them than write them) A sound domestic policy and he could win.

Cool. Maybe we'd end up with Bush foreign policy without the creepy Bush administration.
posted by swerdloff at 10:04 AM on December 14, 2003

it looks like it's still funny, dogmatic--your friends will like it anyway (i would), and it's a collectible now too.
posted by amberglow at 10:04 AM on December 14, 2003

This was all staged to pull your attention from the fact that Michael Jackson and Kobe Bryant are both innocent. Wake up you fools!
posted by WolfDaddy at 10:10 AM on December 14, 2003

Hmm...filthy, shaggy, and cowering in a hole? Sounds familiar:


posted by hama7 at 10:11 AM on December 14, 2003

i have this strange feeling that many people here are hoping for the worst from the recent bombing. just a hunch.



ah, it's good to see so many MeFi right-wing friends suddendly interrupt their self-imposed hiatus and reappear here with the usual slander.
plus, we missed the "you're all Pinko terrorists" elegant arguments

sadly, in the real world (as opposed to the warblogger's Islam-hating Neverland where 9-11 was an Iraqi operation and Osama and Saddam are now "irrelevant" unless you catch them, then they become key to the "war" effort) Saddam's capture is hardly a panacea.

First, in the real world, one needs to establish if Saddam had -- in his cement hole -- the necessary means to communicate with his foot soldiers and to organize the resistance -- or counterinsurgency, or whatever you want to call the very efficient GI-killing Iraqi machine. If he hadn't, it's very naive to expect attacks to stop.
it'll also be interesting to watch how -- and where, and when -- the Saddam trial will happen

memo to our neo-McCarthyite, Bush-loving friends: one can't avoid to be a little surprised by your penchant for hungrily making political hay out the (very, very few) good news coming from Iraq.
of course when Democrats use (bad) news from Iraq to make a point they're traitors.

heh.

up is down, right?

anyway, children, don't spike the ball just yet


oh, and poopy, when did you stop beating your wife?
posted by matteo at 10:13 AM on December 14, 2003

The local news station had some reactions from Iraqi-Americans in Dearborn, MI and the people they interviewed all sounded very jubilant.

And NewsMax had this interesting quote from Joe Lieberman from Meet the Press: "If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would be in power today, not in prison." I'm taking that report with a grain of salt obviously considering the source, but that seems like a very serious charge for anyone to make.
posted by gyc at 10:15 AM on December 14, 2003

I think we should let Bush have 15 minutes in the ring with him, one-on-one. After all this was the guy that tried to kill his dad.


Oh, and some other stuff...
posted by hoborg at 10:15 AM on December 14, 2003

It does present an interesting dilemma from a criminal procedure standpoint - at least interesting to someone like myself who has studied international law.

As you point out, an ICC trial is highly unlikely, since the U.S. is not a member. I suppose they could turn him over to an ally like the U.K. (who is a member) - but that is pretty unlikely.

Nor do I think they would bring him to Cuba. The "detainees" at Guantanamo are (at least arguably) prisoners of the "war on terror" - former members of Al Queda and the Taliban. I don't believe anyone captured in Iraq has been sent there. It would put the U.S. in the difficult position of having to try and prove Saddam had solid links to international terrorist networks actively working to harm the U.S. I don't think they want to try and go there.

The most logical thing will be to try him in Iraq for his very numerous and evident crimes against the Iraqi people. Exactly who will be trying him is the real question. Iraq doesn't currently have a judicial system. Any trial set up and run by the U.S. military/provisional authority will likely be seen as a kangaroo court. So, it seems like they will have to hold him as a prisoner on behalf of the Iraqi people for a few months, until they can set up some sort of panel of Iraqi judges.

I'd imagine they will try and get a representative panel of at least eight or so judges. Probably a Shiite, a Sunni, a Kurd, a Turkoman, an Assyrian . . .and probably containing both Civil Law and Shari`a legal experts. How the eventual execution will take place is anyone's guess. Will is be U.S.-style lethal injection? My guess is military-stle firing squad.
posted by sixdifferentways at 10:19 AM on December 14, 2003

hamasheaven,

glad you mentioned Lindh's capture -- funny how the Geneva Convention gets mentioned only when it's convenient for a certain side.
but maybe some people are more equal than others


but I agree, Lindh's beard didn't get inspected for lice in front of the cameras for the whole world to see, so he can't complain much right? and he's not even a former head of State of a former American ally nation
;)
posted by matteo at 10:23 AM on December 14, 2003

8) noriega-claus ?



while the US is preoccupied with cleaning up another one if its messes, vastly more dangerous ones persist.
posted by specialk420 at 10:24 AM on December 14, 2003

> oh, and poopy, when did you stop beating your wife?

matteo, I'll bet you a Cinzano umbrella Iraq has a constitution before Europe does. Il faut cultiver notre jardin.
posted by jfuller at 10:24 AM on December 14, 2003

matteo, well put.
posted by skallas at 10:25 AM on December 14, 2003

First, in the real world, one needs to establish if Saddam had -- in his cement hole -- the necessary means to communicate with his foot soldiers and to organize the resistance
Considering that his hiding spot was captured in part by tips of his use of a taxi that was driven to the place of his capture- the same taxis he used during the first Gulf War to travel incognito- I would speculate that he did in fact have contact with his foot soldiers.
(Then again, those are just news reports, so will have to see its really how his hiding place was found)
posted by jmd82 at 10:31 AM on December 14, 2003

Lieberman did in fact say what you quoted. (Link from Lieberman's own site here.)

Here's Dean's statement, which largely steers clear of politics.
posted by Vidiot at 10:32 AM on December 14, 2003

First, in the real world, one needs to establish if Saddam had -- in his cement hole -- the necessary means to communicate with his foot soldiers and to organize the resistance -- or counterinsurgency, or whatever you want to call the very efficient GI-killing Iraqi machine. If he hadn't, it's very naive to expect attacks to stop.


This has been said in one way or another several times in this thread, and I think it misses the point. Whether or not Saddam was directly coordinating a resistance, his impact was very real as long as he was still a shadowy figure "out there" of which the general populace was still very much afraid. Taking Saddam and his sons out of the picture will have a bigger impact on the national attitude towards actually moving forward and rebuilding the nation, as well as their tolerance for the insurgency.

quote from Joe Lieberman from Meet the Press: "If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would be in power today, not in prison." I'm taking that report with a grain of salt obviously considering the source, but that seems like a very serious charge for anyone to make.


Serious, yes, but... well, he's right, isn't he? Howard Dean was against the war, and thus, if he had his way, Saddam would still be in power. It's not fair, and it doesn't get to the heart of the issues involved, but it is factually correct. And also probably politically dangerous for Dean and really all of the dems. Which, lets face it, is what is bothering everybody so much about this development.

memo to our neo-McCarthyite, Bush-loving friends: one can't avoid to be a little surprised by your penchant for hungrily making political hay out the (very, very few) good news coming from Iraq.
of course when Democrats use (bad) news from Iraq to make a point they're traitors.

It's really more of an issue of the lefties drowning out any successful news from Iraq with the three card monte distraction of doubt and conspiracy theories. Saddam captured? Government forming? Polls show the Iraqi's welcome the occupation? "No, no, hey look at how bad this thing is here!" The left has desperately wanted this war to fail from the get go, and entirely for political reasons. They had "quagmire" on the tip of their tongues before the first shot was even fired.

It's one thing to not have wanted to go to war. But to want it to go badly once it's started, to be so transparently overjoyed at every negative development (it's an opportunity for more Bush-is-chimp jokes, after all) is sickening.
posted by tirade at 10:41 AM on December 14, 2003

as opposed to the warblogger's Islam-hating Neverland where 9-11 was an Iraqi operation and Osama and Saddam are now "irrelevant" unless you catch them, then they become key to the "war" effort

And yet time after time I've read how the attempt for saddam's capture was now being swept under the rug as unimportant because we couldn't catch him.

Now we've got him and its suddenly "irrelevant". Funny how that works.

matteo, well put.

Translation: I agree with you completely (so therefore well put!)

ah, it's good to see so many MeFi right-wing friends suddendly interrupt their self-imposed hiatus and reappear here with the usual slander.

Slander? Are you reading this thread?

Really, if you were 'right wing' my friend I doubt you'd hang out at metafilter either. Read the thread and you might find a clue why (and slander of course).
posted by Dennis Murphy at 10:42 AM on December 14, 2003

we have questions, and we ask them. it doesn't mean we want the war to go badly. I suspect you know this but are just hungry for conflict.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:44 AM on December 14, 2003

Anyone feel safer?
posted by machaus at 10:44 AM on December 14, 2003

joe lieberman is an ass. he may as well say, "if howard dean were president today, those 3,000 people killed in the WTC attack would be alive, and 10,000s of more people would have jobs." just as bogus a statement. the president of the U.S. does *not* control everything that happens in the world.

also, i don't understand the antagonism to the objective analysis of Saddam Hussein's capture. i don't see really anyone here "bashing" Bush on this issue, just talking about possible ramifications of this event.

i guess that any open discussion of recent events is enough for some to scream "YOU SUPPORT THE TERRORISTS!" sheez. what's so "terroristic" about rational discussion?
posted by mrgrimm at 10:50 AM on December 14, 2003

Lubavitcher Rebbe Found Alive And Well In Tikrit
posted by PenDevil at 10:53 AM on December 14, 2003

Summary:

"Where's Saddam? Where are the WMDs?"
"We got Saddam. Now we can hear about the WMDs from the horse's mouth."
"YOU HAVEN'T ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING! THIS IS MEANINGLESS!"
(or, specialk420 version, "THERE ARE STILL TEN THOUSAND THINGS WRONG IN THE WORLD, I CAN'T HEAR YOU, LALALA")

Nobody expects this to mean a sudden end to Ba'athist attacks, nor will a thousand years of peace and equality for all men immediately follow. But it's a pretty significant event.
posted by darukaru at 10:55 AM on December 14, 2003

I think that the main argument that i have at least against this kind of military action is that this is the kind of action that creates future osamas. We drop a bomb with USA printed on its ass on one house to many, little kid grows up eyes filled with hate.

A lot of things "create" psychopathic murderers, not the least of which are their own delusions and body of enablers.

You didn't rescue my country from the insane dictator who left us all to starve and murdered thousands for political purposes, therefore I hate you and you must die. You gave the people I don't like more than you gave me, therefore I hate you and you must die. You worship the wrong god, therefore I hate you and you must die. You have freedoms I don't like, therefore I hate you and you must die. You exist, I don't want you to, therefore you must die. Any justification that I can fabricate in my muddled mind gives me good reason to hate you and if I hate you, you must die!

Action or inaction, we will face criticisms from wildly divergent parties and someone, somewhere, on one side or other of every nation, faction, party or entity in the world will have a gripe with us. Occasionally the people with gripes will be homicidal maniacs who happen to have the charisma to stir up sympathy from those who are similarly mentally screwed and a bunch of them will get inspired to try to blow something up or otherwise kill a bunch of people.

We're damned if we do and damned if we don't, because we're the ultimate bastion of power and therefore we have a massive target plastered right over our (metaphorical) heart.

Even if we withdrew every American troop from every other foreign land, withdrew every penny of foreign aid, expelled all foreign nationals, closed our borders and ended all international trade today and became entirely isolationist in every way, we would still be a target.

And conversely, if we dug in, took every tyrant to task, demanded regime change in every non-democratic nation with the threat of military force if it could not be acheived peaceably and responded to every threat to human rights that we became aware of in some fashion or another, even if we saved millions of lives in the process, we would still be a target.

Much as law-abiding citizens of crime-ridden neighborhoods secure themselves as much as possible but cannot allow thugs to steal away their enjoyment of their own communities, we cannot let the whims of dictators, despots and cave-dwelling psychopaths determine our course for us. The kooks, or the fear of the kooks, can not and should not be the deciding factor in any policy except the specific policy of de-kookifying the world for the common greater good.
posted by Dreama at 10:57 AM on December 14, 2003

The trial question is really quite interesting. Saddam has clearly violated international criminal law, so he could really be tried anywhere with jurisdiction to apply international criminal law. But I think it would be a mistake to try him anywhere other than Iraq.

Unlike a typical trial, there's going to be no doubt at all about the outcome, wherever he's tried (although I suppose the sentence could vary in different venues). I don't think anyone really doubts that Saddam is guilty of crimes against humanity. The real purpose of any trial would be to give the victims of Saddam's atrocities an opportunity to tell their stories and have those stories validated through a legal proceeding and, ultimately, a conviction. A trial in Iraq, if done thoughtfully, could really be quite a powerful and cathartic moment for the Iraqi people---allowing the country to bring some degree of closure to a very dark period in their history.

The key is that the trial be done right. That is, that it be done entirely out in the open with transparent processes, that it have an air of legal legitimacy to it, and that it be aimed at allowing the victims to tell their stories publicly.

It's an exciting opportunity for Iraq. I hope Bush and Rummy don't screw it up.
posted by boltman at 11:01 AM on December 14, 2003

stavros: This is a good morning because a dictator who ruled a country for 30 years is no longer in power and is now captured. The fear of the Iraqis that he might come back in power is gone. Most Iraqis are thrilled by this.

sourbrew: Karl Marx, absolutely.

matteo: You put a quote at the start from and a dig at the end at poopy. But the
second line you say something about right-wingers coming back from their self-imposed hiatus. Was poopy on a self-imposed hiatus, or were you trying to tie him in with ParisParamus, a none too loved figure? Hmm, that would be "guilt by association", a McCarthyite tactic, wouldn't it?

I also liked the contrast of you writing "plus, we missed the "you're all Pinko terrorists" elegant arguments" and "memo to our neo-McCarthyite, Bush-loving friends". It pushes the hypocrisy level of your post to extraordinary heights. Congrats.

machaus: Anyone feel safer? Personally, no. I bet a hell of a lot of Iraqis do, though.

mrgrimm: I don't see anyone, besides ParisParamus, who I think most people ignore, saying "you support the terrorists". I found that reading much of this thread I got the definite vibe that some people were not happy that Saddam was captured. Even the post has digs at Bush in it. I think this can and should be discussion rationally.
posted by superchris at 11:02 AM on December 14, 2003

Anyone feel safer?

Kurds? Iraqi dissidents? Hundreds of thousands of citizens all over the Mid-East?
posted by dhoyt at 11:06 AM on December 14, 2003

THERE ARE STILL TEN THOUSAND THINGS WRONG IN THE WORLD

yoh darukaru ... want to tell the kids here what the line succession in nuclear armed pakistan would be had musharraf been smoked in that assasination attempt?
posted by specialk420 at 11:06 AM on December 14, 2003

Slander? Are you reading this thread?

Sadly, I am.
I see the usual RNC talking point over and over again -- "they attack the president for attacking the terrorists".
anti-Iraq war people actually care so much about the soldiers that they resent the White House using them as pawns in a badly-planned adventure
but I agree, reason would blow up your arguments all the time, so stick with the slander

matteo, I'll bet you a Cinzano umbrella Iraq has a constitution before Europe does. Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

a Cinzano umbrella?

nevermind.

but are you trying to argue that until the EU has a Constituion no European can discuss Iraq? On what basis?
A new low, really, even for your admittedly not-that-high standards
But I understand the American right-winger's glee at the Spaniards and Poles sabotaging the European Constitution -- it was all over the warblogs, together with extremely ill-informed analysis

If you really want to bet, wanna bet on the date of a real one-person-one-vote Iraqi election? Like, an election where right now the polls indicate that the ayatollahs are bound to kick everybody's ass? Are you willing to erase the Iraqi election's results, Algeria-style, if it comes to that?

and anyway, if you feel bad about my comments, just call me a dago, or a greaseball -- you'll feel better, mon ami

;)
posted by matteo at 11:09 AM on December 14, 2003

"Anyone feel safer?"
Anyone who thinks that the haggard man in the basement was behind the insurgents might. I actually have family at risk in Iraq, so I'll wait and see. How many of you chickenhawks crowing around here risk losing a brother or nephew over your little adventure?
I do.
How many have already lost a family member to past military adventures?
I have.
How about you Paris?
Fuck off.
posted by 2sheets at 11:13 AM on December 14, 2003

tirade: he's right, isn't he? Howard Dean was against the war, and thus, if he had his way, Saddam would still be in power.

Methinks that's a bit unfair -- jumping to the other side of the spectrum, no? Are you really essentially saying that if someone isn't 100% in lockstep with the war as it has been conducted by BushCo, then they support Saddam by default? This excludes quite a number of middle options that could have been explored, not the least of which is dealing with the situation in concert with a genuine and significant international coalition instead of doing everything we can to isolate ourselves and bare the full brunt. Is Dean against "war" or against "this war"; carried out in a reckless rush, ignoring other options, nose-thumbing the international community, playing off 911 hysteria, exagerrating WMD threats, taking the heat off OBL and tossing no-bid contracts to campaign contributers?
posted by RavinDave at 11:17 AM on December 14, 2003

Saddam Hussein: A Life of Violence (via NPR)
posted by dhoyt at 11:21 AM on December 14, 2003

superchris: I found that reading much of this thread I got the definite vibe that some people were not happy that Saddam was captured

Or maybe, some people aren't getting terrible enthused over the 2nd "Mission Accomplished" on an arguably illegal war based on lies that has cost thousands of lives. Was it all worth it? Where are the WMD?

Just focusing on Saddam is a nice short-term stragety to keep Fox News and the Warbloggers hard for a while, but the larger issue of why we're fighting in the first place should not be shoved under the rug after every victory - big or small - in this war.

Yes, its excellent news for re-building Iraq, but let us not forget why Bush rationalized destroying it in the first place. Sorry if everyone 'can't get behind the president' and bash Howard Dean because an out of power tyrant on the run with very limited support was finally caught by the world's best military in a war many disagree with.

"Let us never forget" cuts both ways, I'm afraid.
posted by skallas at 11:24 AM on December 14, 2003

> If you really want to bet, wanna bet on the date of a real one-person-one-vote
> Iraqi election?

You're on. Iraq has a one-person-one-vote election before the EU does.


> and anyway, if you feel bad about my comments, just call me a dago, or
> a greaseball -- you'll feel better, mon ami

OK, if I ever feel bad about your comments I will.
posted by jfuller at 11:25 AM on December 14, 2003

And is this finally the decapitation of the resistance in Iraq?

I would imagine it's a huge setback to Saddam's loyalists, but I fear that religious militants will spin it as God's punishment on secularism. We'll know soon enough.
posted by homunculus at 11:26 AM on December 14, 2003

What I think is more important than the capture of Saddam is to look at the flow of capital coming out of the government during reconstruction, i.e. Haliburton. Let's see what happens when former Iraqi state property and businesses become privatized and saturated with international capital and the majority of property ownership is concentrated outside of Iraq. Let's see if this war wasn't really just about opening the door for economic imperialism in the region. Sure, a sovereign Iraqi government can be setup, but but how much real power is it going to have when the majority of productive property is owned by international investment corporations? What effect will this have on Iraqi culture and it's regional neighbors economies? What if this war was really just about economics and installing a client state in order further press the Middle East to give in and be bought up by American and Western European capital?

Sorry, people. Guess I've just seen too many pictures of Marx on the web today and I'm interested in responses to the above argument.
posted by rhizome23 at 11:28 AM on December 14, 2003

Kottke says:

Unsurprisingly, the small but particularly vocal segment of the blogos-whatever that can be identified by their non-ironic use of the word anti-idiotarian, is asserting that there is only one right reaction to Saddam's capture and any other possible opinion is incorrect. It's a toss-up these days as to whose coverage of current events is worse, cable news or that of weblogs. Fox News may have Bill O'Reilly, but reading the weblog coverage lately is like watching 1000 cable channels at once, each with their own O'Reilly arguing with all the other O'Reillys. Warblogs, you've jumped the shark. Next!

posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:28 AM on December 14, 2003

I bet the reunion between these two old buddies is going to be awkward.
posted by homunculus at 11:30 AM on December 14, 2003

"What is the significance of the capture of Saddam for contemporary Iraqi politics? He was probably already irrelevant."
posted by specialk420 at 11:30 AM on December 14, 2003

I think this has been a remarkably sensible thread, save the usual exceptions.

There is much agreement that Saddam is captured, and this is a Good Thing.

Likewise, there is much agreement that figuring out how to try the bastard fairly is going to be a Difficult Thing.

Most people recognize that the administration was pooh-poohing the importance of Saddam just a few weeks ago; and find it frustrating that his capture is now suddenly The Most Important Thing.

Most people are also frustrated that the administration is neglecting its duties in Afghanistan, which is falling apart all around the soldiers, and is becoming an embarassing debacle.

That all seems sensible to me, and I don't see how it equates to Bush-bashing. It's just simple truth. If it runs counter to the administration's words or actions, that's a problem with the administration, not with the people who recognize the truth.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:32 AM on December 14, 2003

Damn that Gen Sanchez. He probably just wants the U.S. to fail.
posted by raysmj at 11:33 AM on December 14, 2003

"All bearded dudes look alike."

What I learned on MeFi.
posted by HTuttle at 11:34 AM on December 14, 2003

I get this heavy feeling in my solar plexus when I see people ejaculating over a propaganda victory like this. Darlings, this makes nobody safer. He was crouched in a hovel in a bricked-up section of somebody's basement. He wasn't in charge of an armed resistance, he wasn't even in charge of where he could poop. The very fact that he had to be checked for head lice ought to indicate to you that maybe he wasn't poised to play his trump card.

BUSH
"Saddam WHO-sane? Ha ha, but seriously, folks, we don't give a shit about that guy, and we never did. We came here to help the people of Iraq, and that's what we're going to do. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got an infrastructure to build."

(Bush rolls up sleeves and accepts a shovel from a tired-looking US Soldier)

PRESS
"Ewww! Ahhh! See how he rolled up his sleeves? I think he's going to rebuild Iraq himself!"

INCREDULOUS UNPATRIOTS
"But what about the nuclear weapons?"

BUSH
"WHO-cular weapons? Ha ha, but seriously folks, if you'll turn your attention back to the shovel..."

SADDAM HUSSEIN
"Yes, yessss.. all goes according to plan. I'll use that shovel to dig your grave one day. While the people of Iraq heap praise on Bush, in his fortified command-hole, Saddam waits. Saddam waits."

So, first it was about was about stopping terrorism. Then it was about protecting our country from an imminent threat of attack. Then it was about getting rid of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athists. Then it was about helping the people of Iraq. Then, for a while, I wasn't sure what it was about. Then it was about pissing off France and Russia. Now it's about Saddam Hussein again. I'm confident that if I can only find the pattern of justifications, I will be able to derive the secret of pi and communicate with God.

You know, this may sound unpatriotic, but I was starting to think this war might have been a lousy idea. Fortunately, the loss of life and estrangement from the world community has been totally justified by yesterday's capture of Walt Whitman.

We've caught our red herring, America, now let's make a trophy out of him!
posted by Hildago at 11:34 AM on December 14, 2003

You're on. Iraq has a one-person-one-vote election before the EU does.

heh.
sorry to burst your bubble -- I don't know what you heard on talk-radio, but European Countries do have Constitutions, and do vote for their national governments AND for the European Parliament already
so there already is representation in a EU legislating body.
if you think that drafting a European Constitution is a small feat, help yourself. anyway the whole switch to the Euro went pretty well -- wanna exchange some dollars and get a strong currency?
;)

I also liked the contrast of you writing "plus, we missed the "you're all Pinko terrorists" elegant arguments" and "memo to our neo-McCarthyite, Bush-loving friends". It pushes the hypocrisy level of your post to extraordinary heights

I know it hurts, but "they attack the President for attacking the terrorists" is pure McCarthyite slander.
Deal with it.
Learn to appreciate yourself more
;)

even if we don't count FreedomParamus (I don't see why, by the way, he is a voice of the right wing in this site, he says -- Coulter-like -- what other Bush-lovers are too polite to state clearly, and his contribution makes MeFi more diverse, it's good to always have somebody here remember us NorthKoreans the right-winger's point of view) you may want to check out this thread for those users who mentioned things like people "hoping for the worst from the recent bombing" and French lawyers flying to Baghdad

but again, one wouldn't want to burst the nice bubble where the Pinkos are evil anti-Americans

fact is, the dread "peaceniks" are the ones who have a problem with hundreds of coalition soldiers being slaughtered, and they're the ones who'd like some sort of sane policy for Iraq, for the good of Iraqis and of coalition soldiers -- the peaceniks are the true patriots, I am sorry to report.
as for VietNam, History will serve those who still dream up "domino theories" -- neocons are today's McGeorge Bundys

also, I'm just curious: do you have more of a problem with the "Bush-love" or the "McCarthy part"?


did you stop beating your wife as well?
posted by matteo at 11:36 AM on December 14, 2003

"because this development has the side effect of being strategically beneficial to the Bush administration, you're all lining up to do your best to shit all over it, even against any shred of rationality or decency. This goes beyond "far left MeFi contingent". It's just pure bile and hatred now.
...It's all just venom. There's so much thinly veiled anger at this success that it'd be almost comical if it weren't so revolting"......"Way to go with the hyperbole"

Gee, Tirade - if I cut and paste your quotes and juxtapose them, you can be your own critic!

Dennis Murphy - slander? Meanwhile - "Ahh, right wing ad-bloginem attacks. So predictable really." (my statement)
"As predictable as this left wing ad-bloginem attack, huh?" (yours) - I'd actually call my statement a clinical observation.

"Metafilter - shitting on shreds of morality and decency!" OK then.

What was that quote about patriotism being the last refuge....might it apply to those who set themselves up as abitrers of morality?

"It's really more of an issue of the lefties drowning out any successful news from Iraq" - Tirade, you hit the nail on the head. I turned on my TV this morning to check the news, and the only channel I could find was this Metafilter bullshit - nothing but text and all blue - where a bunch of liberals were vomiting all over everything good and just in the world. It freaked me out. Where were all the networks?

It's a good thing that they caught Saddam, but I hardly think that the problems in Iraq are over. As I've said before, I think the US military has been sent to do a job in Iraq which cannot be accomplished with the current force levels.

And flailing around with a wide tar-covered brush - as I see some doing here - to smear invective on everyone who does not parrot the official right wing prescribed mantra "Saddam caught. Great victory for Iraqis and all humankind. Bush vindicated" (and no humor allowed either!) amounts to an attempt at bullying, sure, but it won't do anything to change the basic facts on the ground in Iraq.

The British pacification of Belfast or the French battle for Algiers took force levels 10X those the US has in Iraq - Saddam's capture will help, at least in the short term, but I think is hardly enough to insure success.

I question whether the Bush Administration is being realistic about what it will take to succeed in Iraq - this is not a criticism of the US military at all. It is a criticism of Bush policy.

On the subject of shit - well, I choose to save my invective for Bush ideologues who - like untrained dogs - are leaving godawful messes everywhere they roam, messes like the budget deficit, maybe Iraq, and certainly US energy policy, which coming generations of Americans may still be cleaning up 20 years hence. You know what they say - some dogs are just no damn good.
posted by troutfishing at 11:37 AM on December 14, 2003

kot-key
posted by clavdivs at 11:38 AM on December 14, 2003

Serious, yes, but... well, he's right, isn't he? Howard Dean was against the war, and thus, if he had his way, Saddam would still be in power.

Or, if Dean had his way, Hussein would have been captured by a legitimate international authority, mechanisms to try him would already be in place, and we could proceed in the reconstruction of Iraq with the help of our (non-alienated) allies instead of (intentionally?) bakrupting our own country in the process. OR maybe Hussein would be sitting in a palace right now, pissed off that armed UN inspectors were dismantling his weaons programs and blowing up the shit he wanted to keep hidden, and all the while their would be no guerilla war or ominous power vacuum.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:44 AM on December 14, 2003