I think sooner or later Bush will forget abt Saddam just as he forgot abt OBL.
Just a matter of time before he finds a new target !
I don't know if the Bush Administration has Attention Deficit Disorder or they are trying too hard to give the American media that visual it needs to present the news. (Could be both.)
First, Bush needs to find some other shiny object for FOX and the boys to hang in front of his people. In the beginning, it was the hunt for Osama bin Laden, when that stalled we got a whole year of weapons of mass destruction. When those failed to materialize, they tried the 'Look, even without WMD's, Saddam was a bad man and killed a lot of people', mass graves and happy Iraqis thing, that didn't go too well because the happy Iraqis kept killing one American soldier a day. So now the hunt is on for Saddam himself, but it won't be easy and I would have said it won't be an easy thing to drop, but I said that about the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
Could it also be that we haven't stopped looking Osama, just that the media decided that it wasn't important anymore? We have many people still looking and hunting for Bin Laden. Just because it's not in the news every day, doesn't mean it's not happening.
I also don't think that the policy of the US Government is as simple as finding "shiny objects" for the media. They do have the best interests of the country at heart, whether everyone agrees with them or not.
McGentrix wrote:Could it also be that we haven't stopped looking Osama, just that the media decided that it wasn't important anymore? We have many people still looking and hunting for Bin Laden. Just because it's not in the news every day, doesn't mean it's not happening.
Right on. I'm sick of that being used for political hay. People act like the US does not have the capability to do anything more than seek more than one person.
Bin Laden is still without a shadow of a doubt on the to find list. However, he has gone to ground in a vast territory with many places to hide and people who are willing to help him. The same beyond question is true for Saddam.
Regarding their apprehension it would seem reasonable if the orders were, capture if you can, kill if you must, but by all means do not let them escape. If they choose to fight rather than surrender I can hear the howls of indignation now. Murder, Assassination. So it goes some people are never satisfied.
I think I'll say I didn't understand why everyone took such exception to McG sharing he was glad the brothers were dead. I think that's a reasonable emotion.
--------
This was my statement. I didn't want anyone to read a mischaracterization of my words, and think it was accurate.
I did not criticise people for their opinions. McG was criticised for his. And, I was criticised for mine.
Sofia
The only opinions that are valid are those that agree with the majority
That was subtle, Deb, but you're quite right - capture would have been the better choice of words. At some point in time, there should be a shift in emphasis from soldiers to policeman as there is some difference in both training and stated objectives, and possibly this shift should have been made sooner. Still, when a demand for surrender is met by RPG fire, maybe the time is not yet
I doubt that the time will be for a very long time, Roger.
Hope you're wrong, but I'm not making book on hopes.
Hussein is a vain meglomaniac -- I believe he will relish being a martyr and will not give up to be forced into a trial. Maybe promise him leniency for providing the information we want?
Bring em back, dead or alive.
(They went thatta way).
Lightwizard wrote: I believe he will relish being a martyr and will not give up to be forced into a trial.
Lightwizard<
I tend to agree with you here about Saddam.
As for bin Laden, I think our government -- and others -- has not given up yet on finding him. He would be the biggest catch of the day.
Well, Mr. Hussein accept certain defeat and enormous destruction of his country in preference to providing proof of destruction of WMD. His two sons chose to resist capture, again, in the certainty of defeat and probablility of death, to avoid surrender. Saddam Hussein serving as a living martyr cannot be taken as a given.
Hitler made many of the same mistakes but he was interested in world conquest and the destruction of the Jewish race. Sadaam is a rather two-bit example of a despot if you ask me, and the more the leaders of the world and the press talk about him, the more he gets blown out of proportion to the other threats in this world of which there are many.
Lightwizard wrote:Hitler made many of the same mistakes but he was interested in world conquest and the destruction of the Jewish race. Sadaam is a rather two-bit example of a despot if you ask me, and the more the leaders of the world and the press talk about him, the more he gets blown out of proportion to the other threats in this world of which there are many.
Excellent point, LW. I think one of the negatives of what has occurred is that we have made this guy much more important then he ever deserved to be.
Inadvertently he's been put on some sort of awkwardly designed pedestal. Just another example of our our politicians are especially lousy at public relations and are good at selling ideas with the old used car kick the tire approach.
Hmmmmm - here's an idea - capture him carefully, treat him like precious porcelain, pop him on an Island - an Island of Currently Unpopular Mass Murderers and Evil Dictators - the USA wanted him before, as an ally - who knows, you may yet wish to recycle him?
The future is inscrutable....
Far out! Recycled dictators. How many languages does he speak?
I am sure he could learn.....
McGentrix wrote:Could it also be that we haven't stopped looking Osama, just that the media decided that it wasn't important anymore? We have many people still looking and hunting for Bin Laden. Just because it's not in the news every day, doesn't mean it's not happening.
Well, if media is to be belived, the hunt for OBL is not on the list of priorities right now
Recent article from the TIME magazine
Quote:George W. Bush hadn't mentioned Osama bin Laden's name in months, but he said recently that the U.S. was "slowly but surely" dismantling bin Laden's terrorist operation. As the hunt for Saddam Hussein intensifies, some U.S. officials are suggesting that the focus on the former leader of Iraq has come at the cost of eliminating the eccentric Saudi millionaire behind the 9/11 attacks.
For nearly two years, bin Laden has been on the run in isolated parts of Afghanistan and eastern Pakistan, U.S. officials believe, staying out of sight, relying on the help of local tribes and traveling only in very small groups of devoted followers. Last fall, as the U.S. began planning the invasion of Iraq, Washington shifted many of its highly classified special-forces units and officers who had been hunting bin Laden in Afghanistan, moving them to Iraq, where they performed covert operations before the war began. By December many of the 800 special-forces personnel who had been chasing al-Qaeda for a year were quietly brought back home, given a few weeks' rest and then shipped out to Iraq. "They all basically picked up and moved," says a senior U.S. official. When the A-team members left, they took a lot of their high-tech equipment (and Arabic speakers) with them. And while they were replaced by fresh troops, many of the new units comprise reservists who, rather than specializing in countering Islamic threats, were trained for operations in Russian-and Spanish-speaking countries.
The Administration was warned by skeptics inside the government that the switch-out would take some of the pressure off al-Qaeda, but the impending war with Iraq ?- which emphasized special forces as no war plan ever did before ?- took precedence over all other issues last winter at the Pentagon. Now some have come to believe that the change in emphasis allowed bin Laden to disperse to other parts of the world operatives who survived the initial months on the run. "The reason these guys were able to get away," says a former Bush official, "was because we let up."
