Friday, December 29, 2006
CNN Says Two Arab TV Stations Are Reporting That Saddam Has Been Executed
No word if Saddam's old friend and buddy from the Reagan years, Donald Rumsfeld, came by to offer his last respects before they hanged him.
UPDATE: CNN confirms Saddam is dead.
Still no word whether BFF Don Rumsfeld will come by to help collect the body.
I suspect since there's no oil pipeline involved this time, Rummy won't be coming by.
SECOND UPDATE: Will the execution of Saddam will make this better?
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Three more Marines were killed in battle in Iraq, the military said Friday, making December the year's deadliest month for U.S. troops with the toll reaching 106. The Marines, all assigned to Regimental Combat Team 5, died Thursday of wounds from fighting in western Anbar province, the U.S. military said. Their deaths pushed the toll past the 105 U.S. service members killed in October.
...
December was shaping up to be one of the worst months for Iraqi civilian deaths since The Associated Press began keeping track in May 2005.
Through Thursday, at least 2,139 Iraqis have been killed in war-related or sectarian violence, an average rate of about 76 people a day, according to an AP count. That compares to at least 2,184 killed in November at an average of about 70 a day, the worst month for Iraqi civilians deaths since May 2005. In October, AP counted at least 1,216 civilians killed.
The AP count includes civilians, government officials and police and security forces, and is considered a minimum based on AP reporting. The actual number is likely higher, as many killings go unreported.
I guess you can add Saddam's death to the list of those killed in war-related violence. While I cry no tears for Saddam, I don't think his death is going to stop the insurgency, the sectarian violence or the genocide.
Comments:
<< Home
What a spin! Old friends make old enemies, the enemy of my friend is a friend of mine, etcetera et al....
It's been going on for years - regardless who's in the white house at the time. We aided the Muhajideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets to help the Afghans win the war there. We aided the Muslim Kosovars when we should have been finishing off a centuries-old war there but instead we were mercilessly bombing Serbian churches and condemning my hero, Slobodan Milosevic, when we should have been shaking his hand.
It's an old story, folks. Saddam Hussein was at one time a strong ally of the United States, even after they hit one of our OHP class frigates, the USS Stark, with silkworm missiles.
Let's face it - it IS truly disgusting to see photos like the above, but boy, we cannot deny the plain old truth that America plays the same fucking game over and over again:
Today you're my friend - but
Tomorrow we will bomb you.
It's been going on for years - regardless who's in the white house at the time. We aided the Muhajideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets to help the Afghans win the war there. We aided the Muslim Kosovars when we should have been finishing off a centuries-old war there but instead we were mercilessly bombing Serbian churches and condemning my hero, Slobodan Milosevic, when we should have been shaking his hand.
It's an old story, folks. Saddam Hussein was at one time a strong ally of the United States, even after they hit one of our OHP class frigates, the USS Stark, with silkworm missiles.
Let's face it - it IS truly disgusting to see photos like the above, but boy, we cannot deny the plain old truth that America plays the same fucking game over and over again:
Today you're my friend - but
Tomorrow we will bomb you.
# posted by 
: 2:27 AM
: 2:27 AM 
Well said, Steve, well said.
I understand the reasons for a country to follow a realpolitik foreign policy strategy, but it also undercuts the administration's "Saddam was Hitler" rhetoric when we were happy to work w/ him BEFORE the Kuwait invasion but AFTER he gassed thousands of Kurds.
Your point about aiding the Muhajideen in Afghanistan is a good one too. When they were fighting the Soviets in the 80's, they were good guys - until some of them helped with the WTC attacks in 1993 and 2001, of course.
Korova, there is little doubt that a snuff picture is exactly what George W. wanted. But at what cost? Most Americans seem to be asking that question now, even if Bush, Cheney, Rice, Hadley, et al. aren't.
I understand the reasons for a country to follow a realpolitik foreign policy strategy, but it also undercuts the administration's "Saddam was Hitler" rhetoric when we were happy to work w/ him BEFORE the Kuwait invasion but AFTER he gassed thousands of Kurds.
Your point about aiding the Muhajideen in Afghanistan is a good one too. When they were fighting the Soviets in the 80's, they were good guys - until some of them helped with the WTC attacks in 1993 and 2001, of course.
Korova, there is little doubt that a snuff picture is exactly what George W. wanted. But at what cost? Most Americans seem to be asking that question now, even if Bush, Cheney, Rice, Hadley, et al. aren't.
I am reminded of the scene in the film, "Dr. Zhivago," in which Ralph Richardson, who played Alexander Gromeko, Yuri Zhivago's father in law, reads that the Bolsheviks have shot the Tsar.
Some, perhaps Omar Sharif, remarks: "It means there is no going back."
As soon as that message sinks into the collective consciousness of the insurgents who are Baathists, they will be forced to confront a future reality in which they too realize there is no going back. This is a best case scenario, of course, and one can only hope that once the Baathists realize that the insurgency serves no purpose, that part of the conflict will lessen and the collective Iraqi tolerence for abetting foreign fighters warring in Iraq will also abate.
Unfortunately, Saddam's death will have no effect on sectarian violence.
Some, perhaps Omar Sharif, remarks: "It means there is no going back."
As soon as that message sinks into the collective consciousness of the insurgents who are Baathists, they will be forced to confront a future reality in which they too realize there is no going back. This is a best case scenario, of course, and one can only hope that once the Baathists realize that the insurgency serves no purpose, that part of the conflict will lessen and the collective Iraqi tolerence for abetting foreign fighters warring in Iraq will also abate.
Unfortunately, Saddam's death will have no effect on sectarian violence.
# posted by : 12:07 PM
: 12:07 PM
I hope you're right, Kid. Unfortunately, the Baathists are the least of the problem in Iraq now - which is scary in and of itself.
What a mess - a Bush-created mess.
What a mess - a Bush-created mess.
I should clarify - I meant I hope the Kid is right about the Baathists confronting reality and realizing the days of Saddamist power are over.
steve harkonnen, you wrote:
"...the enemy of my friend is a friend of mine..."
I think you need to tinker with your quote.
You wrote:
"Saddam Hussein was at one time a strong ally of the United States..."
He was never an "ally" of the US. He did, however, share some aims and goals with the US at a certain time for specific reasons. But this limited overlap did not make him an "ally".
Neither was osama an "ally". He was just a leader of fighters waging a hot war against the same enemy against which we had been waging a cold war. With respect to the Soviet Union, osama and the US has mutual interests.
Britain is an ally. Not saddam or osama. They were just useful tools for a while.
You wrote:
"...even after they hit one of our OHP class frigates, the USS Stark, with silkworm missiles."
Iraq fired an Exocet missile at the USS Stark and killed 37 sailors. The Exocet is a French-made missile.
You wrote:
"Today you're my friend - but
Tomorrow we will bomb you."
Wrong. We form temporary bonds with unsavory characters and nations when doing so is a better idea than not. Your comment suggests we mislead nations and woo them into false relationships after which we spring a trap on them. Not true.
Post a Comment
"...the enemy of my friend is a friend of mine..."
I think you need to tinker with your quote.
You wrote:
"Saddam Hussein was at one time a strong ally of the United States..."
He was never an "ally" of the US. He did, however, share some aims and goals with the US at a certain time for specific reasons. But this limited overlap did not make him an "ally".
Neither was osama an "ally". He was just a leader of fighters waging a hot war against the same enemy against which we had been waging a cold war. With respect to the Soviet Union, osama and the US has mutual interests.
Britain is an ally. Not saddam or osama. They were just useful tools for a while.
You wrote:
"...even after they hit one of our OHP class frigates, the USS Stark, with silkworm missiles."
Iraq fired an Exocet missile at the USS Stark and killed 37 sailors. The Exocet is a French-made missile.
You wrote:
"Today you're my friend - but
Tomorrow we will bomb you."
Wrong. We form temporary bonds with unsavory characters and nations when doing so is a better idea than not. Your comment suggests we mislead nations and woo them into false relationships after which we spring a trap on them. Not true.
<< Home
