Haiku for July 22

pthouron · Post by **pthouron** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:55 pm

Good points on all counts, Bloo, I don't mind saying...

glauber · Post by **glauber** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:57 pm

DaleWisely wrote:Seems to me that it is way premature to conclude that the Saddam Spawn were assassinated. I'd think the U.S. would have liked to take 'em alive, since there's a chance they'd know where Dad is hanging out. I dunno.

I dunno either, but from here, a comfortable distance away, it sure as heck seems they didn't try very hard.

OK, they were shooting on the troops, but here's a situation where you had four men with small arms holed in a house that was completely surrounded by overwhelming firepower, aircraft, etc. It's like the ending of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

Anyway, it could be one more of these cases where mere stupidity appears like premeditated malice.

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 3:22 pm

If you get shot by small arms fire, you are still just as dead.

Trust me, a "small arm" will look pretty huge if someone is ever holding one on you.

It's easy to make judgements about what is right or wrong in a battlefield situation when you are sitting comfortably in front of your computer. It's easy, but also grossly unfair.

--James

glauber · Post by **glauber** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 3:28 pm

Bloomfield wrote:I for one hope that they catch [Sadam Hussein] soon, that they catch him alive, and that they will try him in a real court of law and not some shady tribunal.

If they allow him right of defense, what do they do when the accused starts digging up all sorts of illegal (or at least immoral) dealings he has had with the US government in the past decade? There's no way the Government can allow this to happen.

Bloomfield wrote:I will not conceal that I hope that this war has so discredited Bush that he will not be re-elected. But beyond that I have no interest in the standing of America as a power in the world being more harmed than Bush and his posse have already managed to do. Right or wrong, they have managed to piss a large part of the world off, and I am hoping for a period of constructive American involvement in world politics and an American attempt to repair relations with Europe.

I'm not so hopeful. Maybe it's because i live here, but what competition does Bush have? We might as well save the money, skip the whole ellection thing and just consider it done. At least he can only be re-ellected once. For all the talk, Bush's pollical opponents seem to be unable to get their act together, much less come up with a credible alternative.

By the way, this Administration's clumsiness and heavy-handedness in dealing with the rest of the world started much before the current wars. It was there in the dealings with international commerce, the repudiation of the Kyoto protocol, the refusal to sign the land-mine ban, and so on and on and on. For good or bad, this country has realized that it doesn't need to please any others, and it can even afford to piss off most of the world. It's rich and powerful enough to go at "it" (whatever "it" is) alone. I don't think much can be done now to turn back the clock.

Bloomfield wrote:And just for the record: I am at least as pissed at European governments (particularly France and Germany) for they way they have treated America. Very stupid, and very bad.

Good rethorical point to keep the balance in your argument, but i don't see it this way.

(And this is, hopefully, my last post in this thread. I just don't have anything more to say.)

Post by **Dale** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 4:09 pm

Doc Jones wrote:
DaleWisely wrote:
Doc Jones wrote:Maybe sick people should just go to their vet.
I have to have a colonoscopy. Can we talk?

Sorry to break it to you Dale, but colonoscopy is a procedure for which it is impossible to overcharge.

Doc

That's funny.

Post by **Dale** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 4:12 pm

jim stone wrote:As to Saddam's sons, continuing stories
confirm that they were given a good opportunity
to surrender, that they responded by firing
on the troops, wounding three of them.
....
It's hard to second guess the people
on the ground, and I sure wouldn't have
been for sustaining more casualties in such
an effort.

Yes. The more I read about this, the more it sounds like you are right.

Dale

Post by **Dale** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 4:21 pm

glauber wrote: I'm not so hopeful. Maybe it's because i live here, but what competition does Bush have?

Have we completely ruled out this guy?

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 4:33 pm

I almost forgot about him! Loll. Is that an endtable or what?

Chuck_Clark · Post by **Chuck_Clark** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 4:57 pm

pthouron wrote:OK, just for the sake of argument... Did it strike anyone that the shooting of the Hussein brood happened just when the State of The Union mess was starting to create some heat back home?
Am I turning into Oliver Stone? Have I watched "Wag The Dog" one time too many???

I don't think they could have orchestrated the timing that well - could they? Besides, given how many times they'd already 'killed' the Saddamspawn (remember all those bombs dropped on houses where they really weren't?) I'm not sure their planning capabilities are up to this one.

Still, it is yet another case of something fortuitously happening to take the heat off - not that I think it'll stay off this time. Not only that, but the 9/11 attack happening to turn Bush from a "president by accident" into a "real" leader may have been a tragedy for those 2800 people and their families but was probably the best thing that ever happened to GWB. It sure does seem that this regime is lucky that way, but it'd be nice if their luck didn't depend so much on other folks dying.

And don't get me wrong - I shed not a single tear for those two psychopaths. The Saddamspawn weren't victims, or even predators. Killing them is more like shooting a rabid animal or spraying mosquito ponds to prevent malaria or applying antiseptic to a wound - killing is involved but who cares?

Lorenzo · Post by **Lorenzo** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 8:56 pm

Geeze Loueeze! I can't even read past the first page before I have to stop...stop and vent a couple thoughts...

A little military mentality might be in order here:

("you know, last time some Iraqi flew his white flag, it was a trap and my whole platoon got blown away. Last time we had an azimuth on papa we bombed it so well we may never know if he was even in there or not. He may have even escaped. This time, there'll be no question...they'll take their own lives, or we'll finish a life gone bad that God started. And we'll document the end of their history.")

Anyone nutty enough to talked about sympathy for Sadam's two sons are seriously out of touch with reality. These two guys were some of the cruelest human beings to ever disgrace the face of this earth.

Zubivka · Post by **Zubivka** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 2:48 am

Lorenzo wrote:Anyone nutty enough to talked about sympathy for Sadam's two sons are seriously out of touch with reality.

Sorry, but you're the one of touch: you read what you wanted to read, not the words written.
Read back. Then tell us who expressed sympathy.
All that I see is some just dared and questioned the "celebration" method.

I'll add I think that the roots of democracy are not Judge Roy Bean or Judge Dread, or--since there are militaries involved--Captain W. Lynch.

Can we treat terrorism with its own methods, and still remain democracies? This is the whole point.

Btw, this problem is pretty well defined in the movie Apocalypse Now.

madguy · Post by **madguy** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 4:36 am

Though I, too, would like to see Saddam taken alive if and when he is found, I seriously doubt it could ever come about. When faced with imminent capture, being the coward he is, he'd likely take his own life.

~Larry

Lorenzo · Post by **Lorenzo** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:19 am

Zubivka wrote:Sorry, but you're the one of touch: you read what you wanted to read, not the words written.
Read back. Then tell us who expressed sympathy.
All that I see is some just dared and questioned the "celebration" method.

Did I say anyone had talked about sympathy (reading into it works both ways)? If anyone were to insinuate that pity for the two sons--by arresting them under such circumstances, and bringing them to trial--was a democratic option...explain how a soldier is to arrest terrorists who show every propensity to fight to the end, or who fly a white flag to disarm their captors (with no intent to surrender), and still be able to survive as a soldier while arresting them. What should the soldiers do...send in an American Christian preacher, talk to them about love and surrendering of "self" and expect them to walk out with their hands up? This would be considered a laughable joke to any Iraqi.

Can we treat terrorism with its own methods, and still remain democracies? This is the whole point.

Treating a terrorist in a democratic way requires that the terrorist abandon his ways and respond in a democratic way, ie, be willing to surrender (rather than fight to the death) and willingly go to trial. But, there's no sense in talking about a "fair trial" to a terrorist.

I may be wrong...please feel free to help me see the light...I won't be offended.

Zubivka · Post by **Zubivka** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 7:56 pm

Lorenzo wrote:Treating a terrorist in a democratic way requires that the terrorist abandon his ways and respond in a democratic way, ie, be willing to surrender (rather than fight to the death) and willingly go to trial. But, there's no sense in talking about a "fair trial" to a terrorist.

I may be wrong...please feel free to help me see the light...I won't be offended.

ok. What it takes is the will to arrest the culprit, not "terminate" him. I agree termination is more efficient, in the productive sense. A plain arrest takes more efforts.
I don't believe in "fair" trials. But I believe that a bad trial is better than a good lynching.
In the case we're talking about, it was someone besieged. Then it's only a question of time: lack of food, drink, ammo... or fighting spirit. If the person is that ready to "fight to death", he'll eventually take his own life. Which is still more democratic--less lynching--than rocketing him to ashes, and just in time for a National celebration.
I understand it's hard to agree for you. The culture behind the arrest of a criminal (or madman gone bezerk) is so different between Europe and USA: you'll always call us weanies, and we got "cowboys" for you.

As an example of this huge cultural gap between us, most of Europe banned death penalty. Even before this was abandoned, the statistics of a century of death penalties in France were close to a "good harvest" year in Texas alone.

pthouron · Post by **pthouron** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 8:07 am

DaleWisely wrote:
glauber wrote: I'm not so hopeful. Maybe it's because i live here, but what competition does Bush have?
Have we completely ruled out this guy?

I don't know, maybe I'm an optimist (!?!), but I do like what I hear from Howard Dean. If nothing else, he is the only one who is vocal against the Bush administration. If the Democrats are going to lose anyway, I'd like to see him run just for the fun of the "take no prisoners" approach.