Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

jjohn (22)

jjohn
  (email not shown publicly)
http://taskboy.com/
AOL IM: taskboy3000 (Add Buddy, Send Message)

Perl hack/Linux buff/OSS junkie.

Journal of jjohn (22)

Sunday December 14, 2003
08:27 AM

Hussein caught

[ #16329 ]

The BBC reports:

«Ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has been captured by US forces, says the US chief administrator in Iraq. "Ladies and gentlemen, we got him," Paul Bremer said at a news conference in the capital, Baghdad, prompting loud cheers from Iraqis in the audience.»

Nicely done! A better Christmas present, I couldn't ask for.

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • ... that the right things will now happen for the wrong reasons. Because the American public has been snookered into believing that Saddam played a major role in 9/11, they will believe that "the war is nearly over now!" and go back to work and start playing the markets and investments long instead of short.

    So, life will get better for the US economy, and therefore the world economy, and yet we will be no closer to preventing another Osama Bin Laden attack, at all.

    The right thing happening for all the wrong reasons. {sigh}

    --
    • Randal L. Schwartz
    • Stonehenge
    • Then again, those of us with an ounce of sense and who still remember that ol' Osama hasn't yet been captured or killed will tend to think differently and continue to hedge our bets.
      • Why would Bush want to capture a Bin Laden when they sold the Austin airport to the family in the not too distant past...if one is to believe what one reads.
        • The Binladen family in Texas has completely disowned Osama. It's something akin to my Egyptian friend Mr. Saad, who moved to this country last year and was telling me last week how people think it's funny to compare his last name to "Saddam." Something folks would rather just forget completely.

          --
          J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
          • Family is family.
            • And in this country family often abuses, kidnaps, runs out on responsibility, neglects child support, stays estranged for decades, and any number of other divides. What's your point?

              Holding the American branch of Bin Laden's family as being partially responsible or even comparable to him through association is borderline racism. You might as well hold all Muslims responsible since they consider each other brothers.

              Families often have black sheep.

              --
              J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
            • What does that mean, "family is family"? Does it mean Bush won't capture/harm Osama Bin Laden because the Bin Laden family is friends of his? That's utterly ridiculous.
              • No, I'm saying that doing business with a family obviously connected to a terrorist, even prior to 911, seems questionable especially when politicians have been crucified for far less glaringly dubious business dealings. Ferraro was, as I recall, shredded for some barely shady business practices of her ex-husband, etc.
                • No, I'm saying that doing business with a family obviously connected to a terrorist, even prior to 911, seems questionable especially when politicians have been crucified for far less glaringly dubious business dealings.

                  There's nothing dubious about the business dealings, that I've ever seen. There's no significant connection between Bin Laden's terrorist activities and the rest of his family, that anyone's ever put forth.
    • That is an idiotic thing to say. No one that I know connects Saddam with 9/11. Everyone I know agrees we should have taken him down. It is unfortunate that Bush chose WMD as his reason. If he would have chose humanitarian reasons none of these conversations would be happening now.
    • I think we're further away from another Al Qaeda attack.

      Contrary to the dominant media meme, there are all kinds of things that link Hussein to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Remember Salam Pak [worldnetdaily.com]? The terrorist training camp in Iraq where agents, including reportedly Islamic Fundamentalists, learned to take over commercial jet-liners?

      Or, how about the fact that there's a lots [newsmax.com] of [miis.edu] evidence [fas.org] linking Iraq to the WTC bombing in 1993. Also, the Son of Sheik Rahman, convicted planner of WTC 1993, later turned up as a top Bi

      • I don't want to challenge your entire claim here -- I happen to disagree, but I'd have to do some research on the articles you cite, which requires time. However, your second and third paragraphs perfectly demonstrate two claims that have nothing to do with war in Iraq, but are used as justification. First, why is a country's having a terrorist training camp a reason to invade it? The US has produced its own wackos in Texas and Montana recently -- would Canada have had a right to invade and capture Clinto
          • However, your second and third paragraphs perfectly demonstrate two claims that have nothing to do with war in Iraq, but are used as justification.

          Where did I mention justifications for going to war in Iraq? I don't see where I justified the war in Iraq, even once, in the post to which you are responding.

          The issue at hand is whether I feel safer now. Now, you might infer a justification there and you'd be right. I happen to believe there were and are many many good reasons for going to war in Iraq.

      • I happen to believe that if those who attack or threaten American consistently get themselves blown back to kingdom come we will in fact be safer because it will be much less likely for people to mount attacks against us. But what do I know -- I also believe swift, consistent punishment for crime will act as a deterrent. Apparently none of these ideas are in vogue any more.

        Ironically, I'm a pacifist. I couldn't personally participate in these actions or directly condone those who do. But I've also got

        --
        J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
        • I'm not opposed to war because I think it doesn't work; on the contrary, it seems certain to me that it does.

          For some value of "works." For establishing control over natural resources, and forcing people to do what you want, it works some of the time (that is, when things go "well"). As for generally improving the conditions of the people being "liberated" -- well, that depends on the attitude of the liberators' bosses. South Vietnamese who were liberated from the VC only to be rounded up into concentr
          • For some value of "works."

            Very much agreed, and I meant for that to be implicit! I didn't mean war is the first or best solution to any problem. I guess what I really meant was "war CAN work." And in this case I believe this war will work to achieve the safety of Americans.

            I wasn't really referring to working for liberation of Iraq. I believe that to be a side issue. If Americans simply wanted to liberate Iraq, they should have gone on their own as individual citizens. I believe the only thing t

            --
            J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
    • So, life will get better for the US economy, and therefore the world economy, and yet we will be no closer to preventing another Osama Bin Laden attack, at all.

      Just because people at large won't be thinking actively about Osama, that doesn't mean our government isn't. I heard the other day from a (former) Democratic candidate for President that the U.S. has diverted most of its terror-attacking resources to the war. It's not true. We are still spending craploads of resources on preventing another attac