SADDAM ARRESTED

The US Defence Department said it had no confirmation of the report.

AP - EHRAN, Iran - Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been detained in Iraq, Iran's official news agency reported Sunday.

"Saddam Hussein was arrested in his hometown of Tikrit," IRNA quoted top Iraqi leader, Jalal Talabani as saying. It gave no further details.

Nazem Dabbagh, a representative of Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdestan, confirmed Talabani's statement when reached by phone Sunday by an Associated Press reporter in Tehran.

In Iraq, a separate rumor that Saddam was captured or killed near Tikrit sent hundreds of exultant people into the streets of this northern Iraqi city Sunday. They fired in the air in celebration and congratulated each other.

A spokeswoman for the U.S.-led occupation in Baghdad notified reporters that a "very important" announcement will be made at a news conference scheduled for 7 a.m. EST, but did not say who would be the speaker. The spokeswoman requested anonymity.

In Tikrit, rumors that the former dictator was in custody were making the rounds, but reporters attached to the 4th Infantry Division, the U.S. unit in charge of security in the area, said there was no unusual activity there overnight or early Sunday.

"We are celebrating like it's a wedding," said Mustapha Sheriff, a resident of Kirkuk. "We are finally rid of that criminal."

"This is the joy of a lifetime," said Ali Al-Bashiri, another Kirkuk resident. "I am speaking on behalf of all the people that suffered under his rule."

Saddam, who ruled Iraq for 23 years until his ouster in April, has been a fugitive since then with a $25 million bounty on his head.

Rumors about Saddam's capture or death periodically surface, and a hotline set up by the occupation authorities for tips on his whereabouts is flooded with callers.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAH!

And so I fade back into the background.

\(^o\)

(/o^)/

Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has possibly been captured in a raid near his hometown of Tikrit, U.S. officials say. However, the officials told CNN on Sunday that the identity of the individual, who was one of a number of wanted Iraqis caught, was still being confirmed.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. military captured Saddam Hussein alive in his hometown of Tikrit on Sunday, eight months after the fall of Baghdad, the Iraqi Governing Council said. Celebratory gunfire erupted in Baghdad.

The statement said Saddam was captured in a joint operation by troops from the U.S.-led coalition and Kurdish Iraqi forces.

"He was wearing a fake beard and laboratory tests have proven his identity beyond any doubt," said the statement.

U.S. officials said only that the U.S. military captured a man in the basement of a building in Tikrit during raids seeking Saddam and that initial efforts to verify his identity indicate he is the deposed Iraqi dictator.

"It certainly looks good," one senior U.S. official said, cautioning more scientific testing, possibly DNA, was being done early Sunday morning to try to confirm the identity.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair welcomed Saddam's capture.

"This is very good news for the people of Iraq. It removes the shadow that has been hanging over them for too long of the nightmare of a return to the Saddam regime," he said in a statement released by his office.

Saddam was trapped in a cellar, dug a hole and buried himself as U.S. soldiers moved into the house where he was hiding, an Iraqi official said Sunday.

"The American soldiers had to use shovels to dig him out," Entifadh Qanbar, spokesman for Governing Council member Ahmad Chalabi, told The Associated Press.

Qanbar, basing his account on reports from members of the U.S.-led occupation authority, said Saddam had a salt-and-pepper beard when he was captured. Soldiers photographed him, shaved the beard and photographed him again before running DNA tests, he said.

"The DNA test confirmed 100 percent Saddam Hussein's identity," he said.

Qanbar said the capture took place "in a town very close to Tikrit," Saddam's hometown 100 miles north of Baghdad.

'We got him' [CHEERS]

What an arsehole

Best question in the press conference (Italian journalist): 'Is it really likely he was controlling the whole guerilla resistance from that hole?'

The answer is of course no. And that leads to the thought that the resistance to the US occupation is not just coming from 'Saddam loyalists'. A thought the US administration does not want us, under any circmstances, to think.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html

(NB: the Proconsul quip is John Snow's, not mine)

QUEER EYE STRIKES AGAIN!

Although this is being trumpeted as a triumph for the rule of law, and we're told the Iraqis will judge Saddam themselves, it's obvious that there is no adequate legal system in place in Iraq to do that, and furthermore the Americans have refused to sign up to the International Criminal Court in case their own troops get indicted for war crimes. The legality of their invasion is itself dubious, and no retrospective justification has been found in the form of WMDs.

Saddam was captured according to a wild west, wanted dead or alive, cattle-rustling reward logic, and it seems likely that, since he 'knows too much' about the role of the US in aiding his military build-up, he will probably be dispatched in a wild west, cattle-rustling sort of way long before coming to anything resembling an objective court: he will 'commit suicide' in custody or be shot 'trying to escape'. Questions will be raised, but the Bush junta will keep everything quiet and win the next election regardless because, alas, this is the type of logic people understand and care about, whereas a Euro-constitution just isn't.

Of course, I was off 3 days, and I'm probably making up the whole "Bush knew where to find him all along" thing.

*sees Clinton photo* Oh my.

A lot can happen in a year.

Compared to the ivory ranch, democracy is difficult and unpopular. It's difficult, slow uncompelling and undramatic precisely because it is painstaking legal work. It's teamwork, and sometimes you just can't get the team to agree. What's more, teamwork is not as compelling a narrative as 'We got the bad guy'. This faux-populism is popular. The reason I call it 'faux' is that when the people are really in need, the ivory ranch will not be there for them. It'll tell them to pray or something.

Keepin' it simple for stupid dumb hicks, obviously, with one eye making a good impression for the news headlines.

Nice.

As for "democracy" ("mob rules" in layman's terms) it's been going down the shitter for the past five decades, at least over here in the US.

I'm sorry but this is a disaster. Why? Because it means George Bush will be re-elected as President of the US in 2004 and I think Bush is umpteen times more dangerous than Saddam is/ could ever be. If they had captured him next year at this time perhaps I'd be celebrating.

Saddam, now he is captured, should be tried under the Haig convention and given life imprisonment for human rights abuses (along with Henry Kissenger and almost every American President ever - and Thatcher too). Alas, I don't see this happening. They will naturally put him in front of a Mickey Mouse court, set up by America, in Iraq where he will be sentenced to death. Bush will come back to power. The world will be no safer. But enough stupid redncecks will now be convinced the world is a safe place.

Shame.

Is that good enough for you to delete?

conclusion: this doesn't guarantee dubya's re-election. not by a longshot.

Okay then, other people have said what you were saying already on this thread with more intelligence and thought, so you weren't bringing any 'common sense' to the discussion, you are acting like the pitiful wounded martyr again in an orgy of 'woe is me' ranting, and in general you're trying to portray yourself as someone contributing something when you're just waiting to insult everyone again with your idiocy. There ya go!

As if some sort of "International Court" (a monkey court if there ever was one) was going to look at the evidence of Saddam's murder machine and find a less severe form of justice.

You really ought to start worrying about the economy if you want Dubya gone so badly. Because unless there is an abject disaster in the Middle East, the economy will continue, as it has for generations, be the driving issue of the presidential election.

who exactly the fuck is this subgroup that you consider yourself superior to?

Everyone not him.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU AMERRICA HATING FUCKING COMMIES YOU FUCKING LIBERALS ARE PROVING U LIKED SADDAM FUCKING LIBERAL SCUM - GET OUT OF HERE AND GO TO FRANCE U FAGGOTS!! GO BUSH!! GO USA!!!!!!!!@@@@@@

Here's a clue: Iraq does not give a fuck about the UN. Even if the Bushies didn't install one soul there, Saddam's political enemies would have him killed. And last time I checked, he had a few million people there who hated him pretty bad.

I'm against the death penalty, but spending even one iota of effort wishing it wouldn't happen to Saddam is the height of pointlessness.

Isn't this a little extreme...I mean it should be perfectly okay to think it's good that he has been captured in one respect. Not the they like the Americans any better, but can we all stop thinking about the election for a second and consider the feelings of the Iraqi people ? Or is all the "celebrating" just another conservative cover-up....

- Was that an assassination attempt on Mussaref or not? I'm more worried about Pakistan stability than anything going on in Iraq at the moment.
- Atta's visit to Iraq
- And how about those Halliburton contract scandals?

(x-post)

P.S. I've read a fair bit about this...

There are plenty of logical reasons to oppose the World Court, which is why the US has adamantly opposed it.

To say that American presidents have never apologized for blood on their hands or sanctions or wars is a lie. It's just never been a major publicity campaign.

Saddam posed a threat to the US and the rest of the world. The only question is how great that threat was. As of now, I'd say the threat was minimal in the short run and long in the long run.

Which is exactly why the U.S. is always so adamant about getting its way, while at the same time not paying its member-nation dues!

The end (capturing Saddam), however desirable, does not necessarily excuse the deviousness of the means used to justify invasion. Maybe Saddam will tell them where the WMDs are, and has saved all receipts from the Feds.

But if the US fell out with the powerful Shia, then the ensuing violence could make the Baathist opposition pale in comparison.

Although I fully agree with you, the Bush re-election campaign will do everything possible to convince Americans that you are wrong about this.

When you look at its obsession with Israel as compared to the attention it pays to the rest of the world, it wreaks the same way the EU does squelching reports of anti-semitism.

(I mean, just for example, I remember the day the Saddam-statue came down someone on ILX started a thread that was like "hahaha you anti-war people do you see now, the Iraqis are happy, it all worked, and don't you feel stupid" -- and of course even within like six weeks later I assume that poster felt a little gun-jumpy. It's been like not even 24 hours since the announcement of the capture; it is way too soon to sit around saying "re-election is assured" when you consider what an odd tact-requiring situation, unprecedented in recent history, that this puts the administration in: there are a million ways this could play beautifully for them and a million ways it could make them look like idiots or demons.)

Wow. Occam's Napkin.

Man that sentence was convuluted as all hell, don't make me write it again.

i don't think this changes much domestically in the long-term, actually, and in fact will focus attention far more on what the hell we're actually doing over there - Manhunt Over: Get Ready for a Painful Anticlimax

short-term no doubt it's a boost, right through to the state of the union most likely. dean (and the others) had better organize, baby, organize in the meantime, while the spotlight's off them, so they can get ready to pounce

To those who fret over another four years of Bush: stop giving a shit about Iraq as a relevant election issue (i.e. one that will CHANGE people's minds) unless things get much, much worse over there. I realize you think it's bad already and that we shouldn't be there anyway, but those two issues are not a bargaining chip with the undecided. By far, your greatest hope to end Bush's White House occupation is the economy. You need to start hoping for a lot of bad news.

sort of like you on the San Francisco mayoral election thread?

(Unfortunately to be completely honest I don't like that line of thinking in the fucking least and hope it doesn't ever catch much traction with people; already a lot of war skeptics are trying to put this semi-isolationist message to the country that we should, y'know, get out of there, worry about our own problems, etc. Which strikes me as sort of worst-of-both-worlds; we go do something possibly ill-advised in Iraq and then follow beautifully through by washing our hands and leaving a mess behind? Back when the initial war protests were going on there was a lot of talk here on ILE about the possibility of joining them knowing your aims and reasons differed from those around you; when I see "troops home now" stickers those differences are put in tremendous relief for me.)

As far as Calum's posts on this thread, they haven't been nonsense, but yet no one will respond without something akin to sarcastic one-liners. That's probably his own fault due to his earlier "contributions" to ILX, yet I can't help thinking that his response isn't that dissimilar to what a number of ILXors - even some American ones - would post to the thread. Perhaps those responding to every discussion as if there's "points" to be earned for sarcastic zingers that don't discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of a point-of-view don't exactly enhance discussion, either?

American in giving American voters too much credit Shocker!!
I'm constantly surprised by the stupid shit that people (real people! that I've talked to! that vote) hang their votes on. I've talked to several swing voting people who came right out and said that the only reason they didn't vote for Gore is that he was the VP of a guy who
had sex with an intern (oh "and LIED about it!!!", can't forget that...)!

I was also about to post something just like hstencil posted re: Calum. All the rest of you only make yourselves look foolish if you can't viz that he's obviously not being a mindless asshole on this particular thread.

(i also constantly forget how MUCH raw money is at stake, too!! not just for the US but for anybody who can get their hands on it. "iraq for and by the iraqis" opens up a window for local or religious buccaneers that's as wide as all outside)

I said as much above, Stence (and stand by the fact that his acting like he was the only one up until that point to be saying as much to be a touch rich). I am quietly intrigued that he seems not to have risen to some obvious bait from myself and others but one thread isn't enough, yet. As you noted, he's only got himself to blame for being seen askance and has a hell of a lot to prove in order for that situation to change -- especially given his stated goals at wanting to disrupt and annoy the forum.

Right, So that media circus then...

re: the Calum stuff. I don't think any discussion of it belongs on this thread.

Yes.

For the Iraqis it matters in the sense of what way will Hussein be held accountable for his crimes against humanity in his actions against Iraqi Shiites, the Kurds as well as non-Baathist Sunnis?

Yes. But will the U.S. be held accountable for creating the regime that did so? Arming it? Backing it?

Things are a bit more complicated, and I think we need about four threads to untangle it.

Time for dinner. I can't untangle it now, Maybe after dinner.

Andrew's point about soldiers still dying off is crucial. Personally, too many of my fellow citizens have already died in this ridiculous adventure and I would rather not any more be killed.

I wouldn't take it as a given that the death penalty is the outcome the Bush administration is looking for.

US President George Bush said he "will face the justice he denied to millions," without giving details of conditions or venue for the trial.

But the head of Iraq's interim council Abdel Aziz al-Hakim said he wanted the ousted leader "judged by Iraqi judges".

...

US officials have not revealed where he is being held, but US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he had so far refused to give the US military any intelligence information.

He said that while lawyers were still discussing Saddam Hussein's legal status, he would be accorded the privileges of being a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention.

Unconfirmed reports suggested the 66-year-old had been moved to another country. The Dubai-based Arab TV station Al-Arabiya said Saddam Hussein was taken to Qatar.

Members of Iraq's Governing Council said the former president showed no remorse when he was brought before them for further identification in Baghdad on Sunday.

Council member Adnan Pachachi said: "We found him obviously tired and haggard but he was unrepentant and even defiant. He told us he was a just and firm ruler."

...

US officials made clear Saddam faces intensive interrogation both over what he knows about the ongoing insurgency against the US-led occupation, and about alleged weapons of mass destruction - the basis for going to war.

Anonymous US officials who have reviewed transcripts of Saddam Hussein's initial questioning are quoted as saying it is full of rhetoric.

Time magazine reported that he talked about the Iraqi people being in bondage but that he has denied possessing weapons of mass destruction.

LET THE "IT'S NOT REALLY SADDAM HUSSEIN" CONSPIRACY THEORIES BEGIN!!!!!

And C-Man, keep throwing around the "ethnic cleansing" term b/c it makes you look really smart.

Hey Don, tell us again how liberals only look down on voters.

Profiteer, c'est moi.

Hey Andrew, tell me again where I ever said that.

I said: "The UN is a tool used by any nation strong enough to bully it. It's always been that way."

Callum: Funny how America was not able to use the UN for its war against Iraq. It has not always been this way at all - although America tries its hardest to bully its position. Nothing to be proud of IMO.

Who here is proud of bullying the UN? It’s disingenuous for you to assert that sentiment into comments directed towards me. But then again, you’re grasping at straws and full of shit so it’s not all that surprising.

In the interest of time (mine), space, and bandwidth, I recommend you going here to learn more about the United Nations.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-253.html

Furthermore, the US tooled the UN multiple times in the war against Iraq and continues to do so. The US lined up 13 different sets of sanctions against Iraq, for starters. The US intensely pressured inspections. The US, over and over again, has forced the UN to confront Iraq on a multitude of issues related to Saddam’s aggression and historical snubbing of sanctions. Did the UN sanction war? No. But that’s the only time the UN drew the line, and the UN can hardly be described as apolitical given the context. If you still think nations haven’t (or don’t) bully the UN to this very day, then it’s time for you to put up or shut up. Let’s hear your proof.

I said: "There are plenty of logical reasons to oppose the World Court, which is why the US has adamantly opposed it."

Callum: Name one.

Do you even know anything about the International Criminal Court?

The obvious reason to oppose it is that it has political undertones all over the place. The politicized prosecution of US officials is extremely likely, and any country with any sort of power at all on the world’s stage would be idiotic to support something like the ICC. The US would be put in the position of basically having its own troops at the hand of prosecutors and judges whose jurisdictions the US doesn’t recognize or assess as legitimate. Or, as President Clinton put it, “We are concerned that when the Court comes into existence, it will not only exercise authority over personnel of states that have ratified the Treaty, but also claim jurisdiction over personnel of states that have not…The United States should have the chance to observe and assess the functioning of the Court, over time, before choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction.”

I said: "To say that American presidents have never apologized for blood on their hands or sanctions or wars is a lie. It's just never been a major publicity campaign."

Callum: No one has apologised for Vietnam. No one has apologised for Cuban sanctions, for Nicaragua, for Cambodia, for the other countries where America staged invasions and helped to overthrow leaders leading to bloodshed...

First of all, it was you who said presidents have NEVER apologized…you use this sort of blanketing hyperbole shit and then act surprised that someone has called you out on it. But that’s not enough—then you give a litany of your political opinion, telling me places that the US should be running around apologizing for. You make your false statement, and then your comeback to the issue is to shift the sands. Nice try.

You say never? Read a history book or at least Google your brain before you start posting. LBJ apologized about Vietnam. The Clinton administration made an unprecedented apology to Iran for past American covert activities. Clinton also told business leaders in Athens that the U.S. was wrong to back the military junta that took control in Greece in 1967. In Uganda, Clinton condemned America for supporting "dictatorships which lined up with the U.S. against the Soviet Union in the Cold War, rather than considering how they stood in the struggle for their own people's aspirations." On Nov. 23, 1993, Clinton signed a resolution acknowledging, and apologizing for, the U.S. role in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893. On March 25, 1998, he apologized to Rwanda for our failure to intervene to prevent the genocide that occurred there. On May 10, 1999, he apologized to China for our accidental bombing of their embassy in Belgrade, despite their failure to apologize for, much less acknowledge, their theft of our nuclear secrets. On March 10, 1999, he apologized for U.S. involvement in the civil war in Guatemala. "United States ... support for military forces or intelligence units which engaged in violent and widespread repression ... was wrong."

I said: "Saddam posed a threat to the US and the rest of the world. The only question is how great that threat was. As of now, I'd say the threat was minimal in the short run and long in the long run. "

Callum: Saddam posed no PROVEN threat to America and the rest of the world.

Last time I checked Saddam invaded Kuwait. He killed tens of thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands. And I think Israel had a reason or two to fear Saddam, so to say the rest of the world was a threat to Saddam certainly was reasonable and proven. Are you unaware of his aggression over the past 30 years? Do you like seeing things like this come out of Saddam’s mouth: “This is the inevitable outcome awaiting all those who try to aggress against Arabs and Muslims. If anyone wants to learn from history, anyone with greed and arrogance combined in himself, he ought to remember this fact and think again. Otherwise, he will end up in the dust-bin of history, as twentieth century politicians world say….On these same grounds and concepts, the people of Iraq and their armed forces, led by their brave leaders against the aggression and arrogance of the United States and those who allied themselves to the Americans, or followed them under duress, or by choice, from 17 January 1991, the day of the battle of Um el-Ma’arick until today.” Saddam said that in 2002.

If you don’t think he was a long term threat then you are foolish. You also disagree with most top officials around the world. Saddam was never going to forget the Americans coming and running him out of Kuwait.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

Callum: The only threat he had was in the world of George W. Bush and opinion polls following his inability to find Osama Bin Laden

At least you save your dumbest statement for last.

Going into Iraq is the riskiest political move Bush could have made. He said going in that it would take a long time and it has. He knew that it was going to generate an avalanche of bad press and create resentment around the world. Which it did. Now why in the fuck would it be a good idea to do that if you were trying to win re-election? It’s simply preposterous to think that Iraq was a wargame to win re-election. If anything, it’s the only reason he won’t get re-elected.

And as for this:

and the increasing scepticism that maybe Bin Laden wasn't even behind the fucking 9/11 attacks anyway...

Prove it with some credible sources.

I'll bet anyone a dollar that the Saddam's trial (in whatever capacity it's in) won't start until after the 2004 election.

i agree with what you've been saying.
it is also very hard to find literature on the subject (anything to do with israel really) that doesn't seem biased to some degree.
i try not to take sides on the issue but i also think accounts of hotels being blown up + such can't be simply written off as revisionism.

Hm...maybe that might depend on whether or not the attacks continue.

Although Saddam's capture hopefully will decrease the amount of deaths in Iraq -- to both Western soliders and Iraqis -- which is good, the U.S. still will always have egg on its face on why they went to war with Iraq... no WMDs found yet. And yes, Bush will be getting great press out of this for a few months.

But as Ned as said above, a lot can happen in a year. Has there even been talk about Osama Bin Laden anymore? Are Americans just going to think that terrorism is now "over" seeing Saddam captured? If so, back to the economy....oops, rising unemployment again, what to do, what to do (b-b-b-b-ut Dow beat 10000 again... which means more jobs.... right? Um, uh...)

In retrospect, 2003 might be remembered to voters cum late 2004 as the year people remember as Bush just finishing daddy's job at the expense of their being able to get work. And Iraq could turn into an unholy hellhole (sadly) this coming year. If anything, I think these are the reasons Ned, James, and N*ts*h have been cautioning the general motion of thinking that "Oh, Bush has got the election nailed".

And one final comment about all of our political discussions here.. they all seem to revolve around what effect this has on Bush's re-election. Over and over and over again. I'm no Bush fan, and the thought of a Bush 2004-2008 term is painful to me too, but doesn't it seem odd that when we discuss politics on ILX, the bottom line always seems to be worry about a certain someone we don't like getting re-elected? I'm not trying to get on a soapbox here. I just find this facet of our discussion a bit odd from a distance, that's all.

we are arguing a stupid issue here, really. i am quite through ruining this thread.
saddam is caught - yay (i am shocked he was caught alive)¡

But ILX was down.

It was kinda chilling. Such a surreal event (as dyson mentioned, Saddam NOT A CHIMERA SHOCKER!), yet no one to share it with.

Either that or ILXOR was actually a Saddam run operation, and that his capture is why it was down. (I tell ya man, you'll be suprised who you can't trust these days..)

Yeah, remind me how Europe got so tied into that Israel thing to begin with. After that, you can explain how the EU isn't sure if anti-semtism is on the rise or not, even with those bombed out synagogues.

blount otm upthread re: lieberman. 'if howard dean had his way...' desperate flailing.

Dan: I saw the posts, dude. Still, there was this thing in Europe that happened. It had something to do with Europe and anti-Semitism.

Also, if the UN's concern for Israel is all b/c of how much of a part they played in its creation. Does that transfer to the US and Saddam? I mean, people are always quick to point out how we supported/armed him, doesn't that make him our responsibility?

Saddam Hussein has been captured in Iraq. This is the single most important event in Iraq since the end of major hostilities. It is not clear whether Hussein had operational control of the guerrillas, but it is clear that he was the symbol not only of resistance, but of American impotence. Moreover, whether in active control or not, he knows a great deal about the guerrilla movement, and the guerrillas cannot know whether he will talk. That means the guerrillas are in crisis, and their future is in doubt. It also means that in order to demonstrate their ongoing determination, they will have to retaliate soon -- and hard.

Well, I don't know if it was that risky politically. There are significant sections of America seem to care very little about how they are seen by the rest of the world.

Now the whole Israel/Europe thing. I don't doubt anti semitism is on the rise, especially in France. It's being stirred up by fuckwads like Le Pen but also by some on the French Left. However that is not the reason for Europe's critical view of Israel. Europe is critical of Israel because Israel is a repressive state cast in an apartheid mould that keeps half its population in poverty. And Europe feels partly responsible, for Balfour, Sikes-Picot, for the way Britain abandoned Palestine in the face of Jewish terrorism. Resolution 181 (II) and the other partition resolutions all left the Arabs with most of the Water and the Jews with most of the best Land. The only viable state is a a state of both Arabs and Jews, secular and democratic.

Momus, The problem with the European constitution is not the nitpicking detail of the negotiations, if anything there has not been enough of that. The problem was that the drafting was left almost exclusively to idealists looking for their place in history. It's good to have ideals but they have to be things that everyone can aspire to and that the majority can buy in to. Not a compromise but a consensus. Something Giscard D'Estaing forgot.

"Also here is a big important word from that article: Editorial."

The image of a bedraggled, bearded Saddam provides a fittingly foul anti-Santa for this Christmas season. I say they tart him up in an Islamic-green felt outfit with anthrax-white trim and set him up on a throne in a mall. He can dandle obese tots on his knees as their corpulent parents waddle from store to store, maxing out their credit cards on plasma screen TVs and pumping the jobless recovery full of joylessly borrowed dollars.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. More shocked than anything else, cause I never thought they'd take him alive. Everything seems to make things worse, though, so I won't comment either way.

Oh and that's an intelligent way to start a comeback in my direction. America has long bullied the UN, if you're as well read as you make out surely you are more than well aware of this?

"Furthermore, the US tooled the UN multiple times in the war against Iraq and continues to do so. The US lined up 13 different sets of sanctions against Iraq, for starters."

Which many countries in the UN have been very vocal AGAINST, yet these sanctions continued, as did the bombings of Iraq by the US Military. The sanctions did nothing but keep the poverty level in Iraq high whilst America got cheap oil.

"The US intensely pressured inspections."

For years the US could give two shits about what Hussein was up to. They only pressured inspections when Bush decided to go to war and other countries in the UN forced such inspections. When the inspections were sure to show absolutely nothing in the way of WMD Bush illegally hurried into a war without the support of the UN, which he had been trying to bully for months.

"The US, over and over again, has forced the UN to confront Iraq on a multitude of issues related to Saddam’s aggression and historical snubbing of sanctions. Did the UN sanction war? No. But that’s the only time the UN drew the line, and the UN can hardly be described as apolitical given the context. If you still think nations haven’t (or don’t) bully the UN to this very day, then it’s time for you to put up or shut up. Let’s hear your proof."

America bullied small countries into siding with it on the war against Iraq to make it look like it had a coalition of forces. Im truth, no one wanted any part of this shitty, ill advised fucking war that has taken thousands of people's lives - both Iraqis and military. Whenever America is involved with being in any other country all hell inevitably breaks loose and lots of innocent people die, invariably while leaders are overthrown. Show me an example where this has not been the case. America wants countries that have potentially lucrative financial markets (i.e. Iraq) to tow its own party line. That is why any leader imposed by the US is inevtiably a dictator, albeit one that follows the American line of command (Nicuragua, Iran, Haiti).

"The obvious reason to oppose it is that it has political undertones all over the place. The politicized prosecution of US officials is extremely likely, and any country with any sort of power at all on the world’s stage would be idiotic to support something like the ICC".

Every country in the free world supported the world court. America said no.

"The US would be put in the position of basically having its own troops at the hand of prosecutors and judges whose jurisdictions the US doesn’t recognize or assess as legitimate. Or, as President Clinton put it, “We are concerned that when the Court comes into existence, it will not only exercise authority over personnel of states that have ratified the Treaty, but also claim jurisdiction over personnel of states that have not…The United States should have the chance to observe and assess the functioning of the Court, over time, before choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction.”

Oh right, so Saddam can violate human rights and be brought to prosecution but Clinton or Bush cannot? Now are you seeing why people are so fucking angry with America and its role as the world bully? America can get away with anything, and it's wrong. Furthermore, American troops - above all others - should be held responsible. In a country where only 7% of people have passports and the knowledge of world geography is at an all time low, American troops are invariably taken from low educated citizens, often from poor backgrounds, looking for a "way out". The "way out" is often being given a gun and told to fight in a foreign country against an enemy that they have no understanding or empathy towards. They have brown skin, they talk funny, they have turbans = KILL KILL KILL.

"First of all, it was you who said presidents have NEVER apologized…you use this sort of blanketing hyperbole shit and then act surprised that someone has called you out on it. But that’s not enough—then you give a litany of your political opinion, telling me places that the US should be running around apologizing for. You make your false statement, and then your comeback to the issue is to shift the sands. Nice try."

I stick my original points on that. It's not a false statement at all.

"You say never? Read a history book or at least Google your brain before you start posting. LBJ apologized about Vietnam. The Clinton administration made an unprecedented apology to Iran for past American covert activities. Clinton also told business leaders in Athens that the U.S. was wrong to back the military junta that took control in Greece in 1967. In Uganda, Clinton condemned America for supporting "dictatorships which lined up with the U.S. against the Soviet Union in the Cold War, rather than considering how they stood in the struggle for their own people's aspirations." On Nov. 23, 1993, Clinton signed a resolution acknowledging, and apologizing for, the U.S. role in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893. On March 25, 1998, he apologized to Rwanda for our failure to intervene to prevent the genocide that occurred there. On May 10, 1999, he apologized to China for our accidental bombing of their embassy in Belgrade, despite their failure to apologize for, much less acknowledge, their theft of our nuclear secrets. On March 10, 1999, he apologized for U.S. involvement in the civil war in Guatemala. "United States ... support for military forces or intelligence units which engaged in violent and widespread repression ... was wrong."

One President huh? Wowee. In the cases you've mentioned, by the way, and especially China - Clinton had a great deal to gain (lucrative market in China). My point stands - no apologies for overthrowing democratically elected leaders or for the war in Vietnam. Clinton, in some ways, I always felt was good for America - but he did too much fucking wrong for gain my full respect. He sold out the liberal minded on a lot of issues.

"Last time I checked Saddam invaded Kuwait. He killed tens of thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands. And I think Israel had a reason or two to fear Saddam, so to say the rest of the world was a threat to Saddam certainly was reasonable and proven."

Hold on, you're saying he posed a threat to the world because he invaded Kuwait thirteen years ago over an arguement about oil restrictions? He's been of no threat to anyone, but his own people, ever since. If you're using Saddam as an example of brutal dictators that are threats to their neighbours and/ or their own people then why are we not carpet bombing Zimbabwe or North Korea? Oh yeah, no financial gain from that. Israel has nothing to fear from Saddam. They have more to fear from those of us fed fucking up with their racism (and that "Weekly Standard" article someone linked to read like the apologetic prose of someone who wished to dignify the ethnic cleansing in that area of the world). I'm well aware of Saddam's aggresion but where do you stop? Do you now start on other countries? Don't we have our own problems to sort out rather than, in the case of the UK, 6 billion on a war that we could well do without?

"If you don’t think he was a long term threat then you are foolish. You also disagree with most top officials around the world. Saddam was never going to forget the Americans coming and running him out of Kuwait."

Shut up man, the only people who thought he was a threat was American officials. "Top officials" - hilarious! Everyone thought you were barking mad for this bullshit WMD nonsense, but go ahead and put your nice little cross oppostie Bush and support his environmental terrorism and war mongering for 4 more years...

"Going into Iraq is the riskiest political move Bush could have made."

Dumbest statement ever. He knew damn fine that Middle America, with their flags in their drive ways, would love this. Everyone loves a patriot, and Bush has upped spending on his own weaponary while putting America into a stupid war. I've spoken to enough Americans, and spent enough time in America recently, to have heard shit like: "Islam is the cause of all evil in this world" from numerous mouths. That's what Bush has done - inspire racism in his people.

"Prove it with some credible sources."

Prove Bin Laden was involved. I guess you won't credit Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky as reliable sources but both have been increasingly skeptical and done fine research and given good speeches about why Bin Laden's involvement is debatable. Where is Bin Laden anyway? Or have we forgotten about that other US funded psychotic?

How is it really any different - progressing from hating America as a concept and its policies, to hating "Middle Americans" as people and individuals - to hating all "arabs" because of terrorists?

When I was back in the US there was a lot of talk about the war situation, and people were really guarded/no commentish if their views were 'left', even in Minnesota, until certain establishing questions had been dealt with. Then they let rip. I found that whole 1984 vibe not in keeping with the idea of a nation where freedom of speech is an absolute, and the party line now seems to be 'yeah, there's freedom of speech, but if you say something 'wrong' expect social and financial penalties for those opinions'.

Also, the let's be beastly to the 'Arabs' stuff started properly in the early 1970s with Opec-hating under Nixon, and got a massive kick up the arse when the hostages were taken in Iran (under Carter, but...). It's largely a dance with Republican partners, too: Carter and Clinton spent most of their time trying to broker peace in the area. The American public have had 30 years of low-level prejudicial shit-stirring against people from that region, and it's all down to resources wanted by a government looking out for corporate welfare opportunities and always has been. And since most American people have been hate-primed for so long against Middle Eastern people, their prejudices appear to make sense to them.

c-man you have either have atypically ignorant friends, or have been hanging out in atypically ignorant places. i grew up in tennessee and throughout the duration of the first gulf war i heard some pretty nonsensical and backwards stuff, but never anything as moronic as that

of course we didn't have internet discussion groups back then

c-man i honestly don't see the statement, can you copy and paste it or something?

you are just as likely to hear this in the UK ffs

I know the type who disseminate this kind of anti-arab disinformation - my own brother gets paid to do this kind of anti-Arab hate-mongering for the Republican party. (My brother suffers from mental illness which sometimes results in paranoid delusions.)

Knowing the motives of the people sponsoring this garbage (as Suzy points out) and the delusions of people creating and sustaining it in the media gives me a slightly different take on it all. Most Americans may not have access to the alternative.

There's so much else I would like to say, but for a start, I really don't feel qualified to contribute (I don't like spouting off ill informed or emotional opinions) and for a second, well, much of what I would have to say seems obvious to the point of stupidity. The Arabs, and especially the Palestinians, are the last victims of Nazi-ism, in that abused children (and abused races) grow up to repeat their abuse on others. But the climate of hatred and competition dates back well before that, to the Middle Ages and the Crusades, so it's simplistic to say things like that.

b-but it's more hygienic and it makes it look bigger!

How does that go together??? Foreskins are treyf, people

Kate, people's stories on the ground are VALUABLE, more so than armchair analysis; don't fly off because you can't use stats to discuss history/current affairs as if these were fucking SPORTS.

I was, what, 10 when the hostages were taken in Iran, by what were, after all, a bunch of students. What you now know as Nightline was originally HOSTAGE CRISIS SPECIAL REPORT: DAY 132 and so on; being a tiny news junkie I stayed up late or was watching at babysitting jobs. It went on long enough that I noticed people tarring anyone with a turban with Khomeini-related abuse, and resolved not to buy the propaganda myself.

... and whether they still need to be over there.

also, how come people who bitch about the amount of aid the us gives israel don't bitch about the amount of aid the us gives egypt? oh right, jews
-- cinniblount (littlejohnnyjewe...), November 8th, 2003 10:38 PM.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I mean in terms of 'ugly alliances to criticise the us for' israel's pretty far down the list (behind saudi arabia, egypt, russia, the uk)
-- cinniblount (littlejohnnyjewe...), November 8th, 2003 10:39 PM.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but hey, jews
-- cinniblount (littlejohnnyjewe...), November 8th, 2003 10:39 PM.

FWIW I think he's partially right on that but OTOH the most anti-Israeli-state person I have personally met was a former Israeli Army officer.

The sad thing is that so many Americans *do* believe the whole America Good rubric, because they themselves are good, honest people who work hard every day, so why shouldn't their representatives, which they PAY FOR, be any different? My mum (who believes this, and did not get a passport until she was 50) thinks the US owes it to other countries to come in and clean up human rights abuses and 'do infrastructure' like it has nothing to do with hyooge companies tendering for contracts. She is friends with broadcasters/reporters and worked in the international finance section of Cargill for a decade, but seems to have garnered no 'unhappy' information from either source (her best work info was Gorbachev visiting Cargill YEARS before 'official' visit).

yeh it's a shame that. do keep on with your 'americans do this' postage tho.

No, I know, which is why I find it unsurprising though still a bit shocking that he, erm, went other side so to speak. I don't need the lesson, I mean I was engaged to one of them, but I'm just thinking that the chances of Israeli jews being anti-semetic are pretty slim so it's an actual counter-argument to what Blount said on a completely unrelated thread, as opposed to the way Calum et al are talking to him.

"Americans all act like this" etc I've spoken to some Americans too! They haven't all been to Israel, for one thing!! Weird, I kind of feel...gypped?

"I've visited America five times" = "I know a couple gay people who are alright"

C, don't single out the Chosen People for sending the kids travelling, because there are also kids going to all kinds of 'ethnic' afterschool/summer activities whatever their ancestry. A lot of Scando Minnesotans go to Swedish-language camp, for ex. Most Americans like to identify as hyphen-Americans anyway as an involuntary reaction against that homogeneity. We can all tell you how much we are of whatever we are.

British Jews send their kids to kibbutzim all the time. Your 'pal' L. Wener once told me it was a hilarious microcosm of the north v. east London kosher wars, with East on one side of the kibbutz pool and North on the other and NEVER twain shall meet etc.

Furthermore, your worldview apparently is informed almost exclusively by Chomsky and Michael Moore, two heretics who have been discredited on so many occasions it is laughable; indeed, those two guys have had just as much trouble telling the truth as the US government has over the years. You are a fundamentalist in your hatred of the United States government and are accordingly blinded by your own vitriol.

Similarly, fwiw, some of the most pro-Israeli-policy arguments come from former peace activists:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/pbk.caldwell.htm

http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_3_israel.html

HAHAHA office humor, "Americans", you know?

Israel = a capitalist democracy, at least much moreso than their neighbors. Is it so wrong that our alliance with them be based on something that simple?

How do you dig a six foot by six foot L-shaped bunker? And how do you manouvre into and out of one once you've dug it?

I fear tombot might be correct abt this. This is why I think it's fallacious for either anti-americans to go on abt it ensuring 4 more years of bushco, or for american neocons to boast about 4 more years, and go on about dem traitors etc. If it doesn't affect the insurgency in iraq, then it could possibly harm bush.

WRT to the situation out on the sand, I'm with Tracer *way* upthread - Saddam was loved, despised and feared for decades by sections of the Iraqi population, and now he's gone. I can't for the life of me see how this *could* be insignificant.

There's no such thing as free news! Everyone's got an agenda!

Yes enrique we armed both of them at the same time, that's why both armies use nothing but Soviet equipment, you fucking numbskull

i.e. out of my depth, sorry

He became a talk radio host?

super xpost

"[Calum,] your worldview apparently is informed almost exclusively by Chomsky [...]"

Iraq has already changed. But the effects of that change are felt in different ways. In most cases, an extremely large dull pain as been replaced with lots of smaller sharper (tho arguably no less arguable for 'the Iraqi people') pains - still unsure about the legitimacy of whatever pain the Allied Forces were feeling from Saddam but whatever.

xpost

super xpost again! why are you other people trying to talk in this room

Anyway the reason why I am avoiding this discussion much is because it seems fairly simplistic to me to look at decisions made and then just say "Didn't turn out did it, what a stupid mistake". Hindsight and right v. wrong is great and wonderful and superior but it's not really helpful in a discussion of how things came into being; saying that one government's reasons for allying themselves with someone else is "horseshit" is neither big nor clever because the alliance came at a time when such reasoning WASN'T horseshit at all. This isn't difficult.

Also if we had hindsight in all decisions no one would've come fought the Nazis in WWII cos you're all a bunch of dumbasses and you deserve to be sprechen Sie Deutsch!!! < /AMERICANSFORCALUM>

Anyway, my Oliver North posts were *light-hearted*. So to get called a fucking numbskull over them them *does* make feel a bit 'Yanks dance like this' cos it's so out of proportion.

on the other hand,

George Clooney > Donald Sutherland
Ice Cube > Telly Savalas
Mark Wahlberg < Clint Eastwood

Moral: choose your battles, people.

xpost Harry Connick reminds me of another point MEMPHIS BELLE.

it's allll good, wasn't it. soundtrack oddly close to david holmes' old mix cd.

I'm just going to go home tonight and start going through the Band of Brothers DVD Box Set again, I haven't watched that in like 6 months.

Does anybody want my non-special-edition copy of Black Hawk Down? I don't need it anymore.

Enemy At The Gates was fucking horrible awful terrible and stupid and dumb and bad.

You a hot boy, a rock boy
A fun toy, tote a glock boy

http://www.kiss1053.com/missyelliott.jpg

Question: Did the idiot who deleted my stuff READ it or did he just sit, giggling like a school girl, with his finger on the erase button because he saw my name and though, "oooh naughty".

Very sad. Don aside, I was beginning to see a very different ILX during this debate and it was surprising how many people took on a very different perspective to me.

Also, even though I hate the guy and didn't vote fo him, the fact that the world is not yet a nuclear holocaust leads me to believe that if Bush does win re-election, he still won't be able to bring on Armageddon over a second term. This is something people tend to forget/ignore; term limits are an effective cap on the amount of damage/progress a President can do, plus each President regardless of party is going to be different enough from his predecessor that some change of focus/realignment will occur after the transition; Bush might be the first of a long line of Republican presidents but there isn't anyone else in the party who is like him, or would even use the exact same set of cabinet officials/advisors in the exact same way.

obv. the West/you and me remain largely unaffected except there's a sense of either 'justice done' or 'change made/progress more possible and change and progress generally good in essence' among many of us

Israel not a democracy as half the populaation can't vote. Perhaps the relation ship with US is based on thfact that half of Americans don't vote.

Less than half of Americans vote on issues that are arguably even closer to home and affect them more (municipal elections, etc.) And on national issues, most Americans can't name the Vice President. An even larger number can't name their senator or representative. I'd hate to guess the percentage of Americans who could name their local representative to the state government.

Bush can talk about human rights abuse in other countries all he wants, but surely America has a long way to go on this issue as well?

also as far as i know nobody was killed at it tho plenty were arrested, attacked.

use facts, plz.

No matter how defiant he is now, he is clearly whipped....and will have to come to realise it, with no one left to pass the crumbled legacy to.

Hot Shots Part III! Joy!

As I said, a woman was shot through the head by a policeman.

ha ha ha.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031215/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_debt&cid=540&ncid=1478

Death Penalty for Saddam, yes or no?

I say no, of course.

So, according to South Park, The Movie, this would make GWB Satan. Eeeh, like we all didn't know that already.

The serious answer is that he will probably be killed the day after Iraq's sovereignty is restored. If you do not believe in the death penalty, which I don't, you might think it quite a good idea to get some testimony out of the guy. I'd like to know about WMDs for a start.

I don't like this ooooo, we found him in a HOLE business, it's about as juvenile as anything to do with the Eddie Haskells who run America.

Er, for what, though? The election is a year off, the 'handover' of power half a year.

Echoing the above, DNA checks, which I'm sure a lot of people will be calling falsified for US benefit, etc. The gov't just can't win here (see also thoughts on WMD), which was part of the whole point.

erm yeah, but how is that proof?

But personally I don't doubt that it's him.

XPOST pink'

I'm assuming that until the day when you, the public, can carry out your own DNA test at home with samples you directly gather from people to quell any doubt, you'll have to take this on faith. (Even then some people will say their home test kits were sabotaged by the government.)

As noted earlier, Saddam's sons doubtless provided lots of useful genetic info, so.

Bolton win at Chelsea --> Saddam Hussein has moustache shaved off

Bolton stay up again --> ??

Big Sam, Jay-Jay, Youri and friends, the free and democratic world needs you!

Two things that piss me off:

*As mentioned before, the "we got him" thing. That annoys the hell out of me. What is this? "Missing in Action" with Chuch Norris?

*The moron who opened the lid to his little cave said, "George Bush sends his regards". ARRRRRRRGH! Would this guy please, please, please at least make an effort to know why Bush is a dickhead? Thanks. Wouldn't it have been wiser to even say "The Coalition/ The American public/ The Kuwaities say hi?" But not fucking George Bush, who is pretty much as evil as Saddam is anyway.

My gut is that it wouldn't fit outside the margin of error i.e. barely a registering increase in approval. I would also be surprised if one month from now the bump holds, barring any other significant change in activity in Iraq.

Bush "pretty musch as evil as Saddam"? You're high Callum.

George W Bush is NOT 'evil'

i take that back, and will just say that Bush has done evil things, am thinking about the concept of evil now - a new thread looms

(is far better)

Surely the same source of so much else he has shared with us. You know, stuff like this.

It is reassuring to see that the Coalition Provisional Authority is not going to allow Iraq to descend into a socialist hell
run by Stalinists. These labor union rabble-rousers are left-over communists who have been living underground during
the Saddam Hussein regime. Now they are coming out of the woodwork, collecting arms and trying to stir up riots in
order to turn Iraq into a collectivist hell. Who do they claim to represent – "The Union of the Unemployed"?

The last time I checked, labor unions were supposed to represent people who worked. Thank goodness the Americans
are there to curtail this radical element. When all is said and done, Iraq is going to be a western-style capitalistic
society, and if that is "empire," let's have more of it.

Yes, but the capture has come at a time where an increasing number of the public are questioning whether the invasion of Iraq was a wise decision and it stops the democrats from gaining momentum.

It probably is Saddam, but given the weasel-ly actions of Bushco. it is hard for me to take anything that they present as facts at face value.

the joke was not on the 'retard' but on calum, hence mirth

Andrew, the link to the unions thingie doesn't really make me happy. As I've posted more than one time, I'm not against the concept or implementation of unions at all, nor do I harbor any ill will towards them. I think from an employer's point of view there are legitimate reasons to oppose unions, and I also don't like compulsory union membership. I guess stating this kind of shit automatically attaches me to the Union Bashing Conspiracy (div. of the Right Wing Conspiracy and subdivision of Bushco, Inc.) but ya know, I'm starting to get used to it.

BTW that was awesome seeing you on my TiVo. You rock, although my wife thought it was a bit weird that I was Tivoing someone I only know as some name on the Internet.

(Thanks for the kind words! I understand about the weirdness, though; my wife thought it was slightly odd that a bunch of people were posting stills of me from TV to a website, but then again she's met a bunch of ILXors and has known what a computer nerd I am since we started dating so it's not like she was surprised or anything.)

if this specific event makes any significant (ie medium or longterm) difference to the political opponents of bush or blair, then their analysis, their tactics AND their strategy have all been unbelievably lousy (= "we are gambling our entire campaign on the inability of american troops to find saddam")

if all three HAVE been lousy, frankly it's THEIR fault if they lose to bush and blair - one of the reasons i dislike political arguments, supposedly from "my" side, which characterise those who disagree with me as wall-to-wall dumb is this: IF THEY'RE SO DUMB WHAT DOES THAT MAKE ME AND MY SIDE?

Blount, I think we all know that scare quotes "rule." Although, I can't decide if they are more fun than air quotes in "real life."

taking the thread to the subject of scare quotes = classic

Callum, are scare quotes "evil"? Dana Carvey used to use them all the time when he did his George Bush 1 imitation--I hate to make an assumption here, but I'm going to assume that you think the first Bush was "evil" too.

We foreigners care a lot about Bushs's foreign policy because it affectsn us a lot. Wether he gets re-elected or not is a big deal to us, more so than ever, the US presidency being the single most important office in the world at the moment. While his medicare proposals may affect Americans us foreigners will probably remain more interested in that which affects us most.

Blount I really don't think you're a) being fair or b) right.

i don't think they're looking for cavities or DNA, i think they're looking for osama

In my experience the chaps who lined up to join the army were the perpetual dick wads at school, who bullied and pushed people around and then decided to join their fellow thugs in a show of homoerotic male bonding by shacking up in some barracks and being trained to let their aggresion out on other "enemies".

I'm sorry mate, but I'm not sure my support lies with these people using Iraq civilians as target practice.

Tracer you're right, and this is why I think it'll be more of a negative. at least if it hadn't passed they could all just bitch about Democratic 'obstructionism' b/c they didn't all roll over & rubber stamp the Bush agenda again.

re: Medicare though i'm much more interested in its consequences on actual people -- as i am re: Saddam's capture -- than with its consequences on the political fortunes of George W. Bush. no doubt whether GWB gets re-elected or not will have a vast impact on the world, but presidents run for office every 4 years, and campaign for 2 of those - do we only get 2 years at a time to think about people besides the president?

Also, to you Blount - non citizens/ex-pats/whatever rattling off their mouths seems perfectly appropriate given this forum. I find it helpful and validating, actually.

Daria, if you think the Medicare bill won't help Bush in the re-election then you haven't paid attention to the massive amount of demogauging that issue has received over the past 3 presidential elections. It may have been a defensive move by the Republicans, but it was a card they had to play. The wrong fucking card, but one that was seen as inevitable.

fyi calum, he PROPOSED a budget cut (he called it a "spending cap"). the legislative budget session hasn't even convened yet. he won't have a chance to "slash" the medical budget until wednesday may 14th, when he submits his revised state budget. in fact, he won't even be submitting a written budget proposal until jan. 10th 2004 - so who's to say he's slashed anything?

the former democratic governer, mr. gray davis, proposed similar spending medical caps in may of 2003.

agreed talking about saddam's capture (or medicare for that matter) in terms of 'is this a boost for bush in 2004?' is myopic and dull, and would've much preferred either 1) gloating that an awful man is potentially going to face justice or even "justice" at the hands of those he oppressed even if the justice he receives is very similar to the justice mussolini received or if the only reason he's facing it is cuz he miscalculated and managed to offend the sheriff that either turned a blind eye or lended a hand when he actually committed alot of his crimes 2) (smarter option perhaps) discussion of how he will be tried and how he should be tried or even 3) general news update thread with conspiracy theories and chuckling/venting over the immediate media crush fallout. instead we got, like 90% of ilx "political" discussions, bush and israel.

/snide comment intended to acknowledge that people who have not grown up here (or in some other country that is the point of discussion)--and yes, there's a big fucking difference between living here a couple of years and living most or the entirety of your life here as far as assimilating and absorbing the culture goes--frequently talk out of their asses and, without knowing it or acknowledging it, come off as completely ignorant, arrogant, or otherwise.

at the haig with milosevic heading the defense

Republicans are no different from Democrats in this respect.

Happy holidays.

Thank you!

G'Night!

arnold proposes a $1.9 billion cut for this year with enrollment limits for many children's programs (here in pdf form) conceivably if the children of CA have a healthy year we'll be ok.

davis proposed a $1.35 billion cut with outright enrollment denial for many adult programs (here in pdf form)

and it goes without saying that the problem of iraq's reconstruction makes the ca budget look like a cakewalk, and hardly amenable to analysis by people who can't tell a bullet hole from a bullet bruise.

Coincidentally, when I think of the fucktastic problem in Iraq, I almost always think of California as a scaling model. It's not only a dollar issue--it's a geography issue and a manpower issue. Nevermind the collossal cultural undertaking Iraq is; consider how hard it is to police the state of California and then consider the discrepancy in size between law enforcement in Cali and in Iraq.

(i'm not being argumentative, i'm just wondering why you chose the early 50s as the turning point, as opposed to say the mid-60s or the mid-40s or, well, whenever else)

http://www.kuci.org/~brianm/ile/javajive/saddam_05.jpg
http://www.kuci.org/~brianm/ile/javajive/saddam_04.jpg
http://www.kuci.org/~brianm/ile/javajive/saddam_01.jpg

(iraq2 is the beginning of the imperium's overreach and unravelling) (bcz the central bureaucracy isn't remotely strong or smart enough for the project in plan)

And since Arnold hasn't slashed Medicare yet either--hmm, did you read that he did that in the LA Times, too--maybe you were wrong on this. But hey, I'm a patient dude. I'll give you a benefit of the doubt and wait to see your proof that Bush slashed Medicare.

"[New York] Times/CBS News polls spanned the days before and after Mr. Hussein's capture, offering a vivid demonstration of the extent to which public opinion can shift in reaction to a momentous event. From Saturday night to Sunday night, Americans' view of the success of the war soared, as did their opinion about whether the nation is on the right track and their approval of Mr. Bush.

There was even a slight bump between the two polls in the number of Americans who thought the economy was on the mend, a number that had already been growing in polls since October.

In the most apparent demonstration of the shift, 47 percent of respondents said the war was going well for the United States in the poll that ended Saturday night. That number jumped to 64 percent in the second poll. Before the weekend, 47 percent of Americans disapproved of the way Mr. Bush was handling foreign policy, the worst rating of his presidency. After the weekend, that number had slid to 38 percent.

Mr. Bush's approval rating jumped to 58 percent after Mr. Hussein was captured, from 52 percent, and the number of Americans who disapproved of his performance fell to 33 percent, from 40 percent."

Open question: is this true? Do voting Americans care more/know more about domestic politics than about foreign policy. UK press, when it shows US electioneering, tends to concentrate on Bush's Patriotism and his success in the War on Terror. Is that skewed?

The World Wars alone boogied civil rights in the name of war, but as the next few decades progressed the federal courts became activist, the draft came up, the Great Society began, the War on Poverty began, the EPA, blah blah blah. All kinds of wild assed government expansion and power, which inevitably led to a much stronger federal government. This provided an excellent, irreversible foundation for lobbying and the like, a system built to keep people in power and not serve a representative democracy.

It's also the era of monopolies, wild-assed expansion of corporate/military power (including military Keynesianism). But what's wrong with the 'war on poverty' or indeed, the other major domestic theme of this era, civil rights? And when was the USA, in the era of segregation, a 'representative democracy'?

Obviously (?) there is nothing wrong the federal government taking on domestic themes or campaigns, most importantly when those themes encompass constitutional issues such as freedom. But the appetite for federal power is so prevalent and so concentrated that almost immediately those great causes become corrupted and rights get trampled in the name of justice or redress. I'm not opposed to federal action on these issues, I just think they should be limited rather than all-encompassing. And similar to the war in Iraq, there's never an exit plan, standards of action, benchmarking, or other conditional clauses to address status. These programs get started and only grow ad finitum.

The US has always been a representative democracy in design. It's just that a lot of people have decided along the way that it was a democracy and that alone has caused a lot of confusion. (And in that, the "right to vote" is a bit of a misnomer in itself.) The feds have accordingly stepped in from time to time to address inconsistencies from state to state vis a vis voting but that's more a manner of electoral procedure than something inherent to being a representative democracy.

the skewed part is the idea that it has anything to do with success. americans are for the most part hawkish, enrique. the point is that nobody is going to be able to attack bush effectively for his foreign policy.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031218.asp

In no way were women or most black Americans "represented" prior to the Civil War and suffrage (and to a great extent, the civil rights movement).

If you have no say in the electoral process, your wishes and views are not represented. Having decisions made for you without input or any legal standing to challenge these decisions is not representation.

xpost