Navigation

	About FAQ Discussions Journals Messages Topics Authors Older Stuff Past Polls Submit Story - Create Account/Log in

GlobalFreePress

	GFP Hall of Fame

Monday December 15, 03 11:56 AM - What is the advantage of capturing Hussein? With the capture of Hussein we have reached the point that 43’s poppy, 41, didn’t want to reach, just 12 years ago. Now, the entire Middle East might become destabilized. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was then General Powell, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. Vice-resident Cheney was Secretary of Defense. They, as well as, Commander in Chief, Central Command, General Schwarzkopf knew this, and advised Junior’s Poppy not to take out Hussein. Now, we are left to imagine that no one can remember this. Why can Herr Rove think this poorly of the red staters? He must think that have “expletive deleted” for brains, like their role model, the disinterested W. Prior to the war one of the interchangeable FOX rabid, right-wing, stooges was interviewing “Stormin Norman”. He didn’t get many other invitations on FOX because he told the truth. He said that Hussein might or might not have WMD, but he hadn’t used them since 1991. He said to allow the UN inspections to continue. He said that regime change was not recommended back in 1991, and would not be now either, because Iraq needed a strongman to keep the disparate ethnic groups together. It was a shame that Hussein was ruthless, but the US certainly didn’t attack other countries with a criminal despot in charge, and shouldn’t do so with Iraq either. The biggest fear with “regime change” in Iraq is that the entire Middle East might become destabilized. Every one of the PNAC boys knows that things might rapidly deteriorate. None of the neo-con clique is stupid, only corrupt. Last March 21st, Gwynne Dyer’s article, “Aftermath: SCIRI” spells out that getting another government working in Iraq, won’t be easy. “The biggest problem facing an American occupation regime in Iraq is the fact that the Sunni Arab minority, only 17 percent of the population, has dominated the government and the army for generations. The Shia Arabs have been largely excluded from power and are relatively poor, but they are almost two-thirds of the population and in a democratic Iraq they would automatically dominate the government. The problem is that their sympathies lie with their fellow Shias in Iran, and a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad is not exactly what the U.S. had in mind as an outcome to this war.” Rummy is on record as saying, “"A vocal minority clamoring to transform Iraq in Iran's image will not be permitted to do so," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said.”We will not allow the Iraqi people's democratic transition to be hijacked for - by those who might wish to install another form of dictatorship." Some of the Shiites, long repressed under Saddam's Sunni-dominated regime, would like to see an Islamic theocracy like that in neighboring Iran. But in an interview on Thursday, Rumsfeld said the United States would not allow that. "That isn't going to happen," he said. Rummy doesn’t want the Shiites in control. Is that is being accomplished? Currently, the transition of power in “Operation Iraqi Freedom” is running into snags. The process first ran into trouble last week when objections to the plan by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, Iraq's most senior Shiite cleric, were made known through al-Hakim, who heads a key Shiite political organization, the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Al-Hakim said al-Sistani informed him of his "deep concern" about the plan during a meeting last week at the cleric's home in the holy city of Najaf. Jalal Talabani, a Kurdish leader and council member, also met al-Sistani last week and repeated the cleric's main objection -- that electing the legislature through caucuses lacks sufficient popular participation. Al-Sistani has consistently refused to meet Bremer, most likely because such an encounter would likely tempt rival clerics to accuse him of "collaboration" with foreign occupiers. He has been communicating with the U.S.-led coalition through intermediaries. "The timeline and the process will remain," said the coalition official, who is closely involved in the political process. "The details can be worked out, but we are not going to have another shift." Al-Sistani has clout among Shiites, and his remarks should deepen the worries of the U.S.-led occupation authorities, who already had to ditch an earlier political blueprint for Iraq when al-Sistani insisted that only elected delegates can draft a new constitution. What does his “leader of the free world who doesn’t do nuances” boss have to say about this? US President George W. Bush has acknowledged that the grievances voiced by Sistani constituted an “overarching flaw” in the blueprint for a transition of power. This is bad that the US unelected president doesn’t agree with his current Secretary of Defense. It is much worse than that if you believe recent history. Going to back to the 1991 Iraq war you must realize that thousands of Iraqi Shia fled across the frontier into Iran, where the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq took responsibility for their lives. Gwynne Dyer predicts, “SCIRI's leaders are moving back into Iraq right now. Two years from now, they will either be ruling Iraq or struggling to break away from it (and take most of the oil with them).” With W’s regime, where PNAC, the US hegemony crew rules, these types of arguments get settled by what Cheney and Rumsfeld dictate to puppet-boy 43. You would wonder why Poppy didn’t clue in his lazy son, wouldn’t you? 41 realized that Carlyle would make out as a result of another Iraq war. They would make out even more if the US got stuck in a quagmire, and destabilized the entire Middle East. With these Bush ghouls, money is thicker than blood. So, capturing Hussein is not a big deal for the US cause, or for the unfortunate Iraqis, because the formation of the democratic government in Iraq isn’t progressing smoothly. What does an Iraqi based paper have to say about this capture? It isn’t going to slow down the insurgency, as an albawaba.com article, “One day after Saddam capture: Two car bombs hit Baghdad area”, attests. Also, from albawaba.com, the article, “Following Saddam capture: Hamas, Islamic Jihad say Iraqi resistance against occupation to continue, US to pay 'price’”, is not promising. Dubya has to be annoyed that Rummy’s soldiers didn’t follow orders and lob a few grenades into Hussein’s rat hole. Now Hussein will chirp like a songbird to try and win his legal case. He will implicate, 41, Rumsfeld and Cheney. They all have had extensive business dealings with him. Is Hussein’s capture going to help W? Already, according to an albawaba.com article, “Saddam tells interrogators: “U.S. dreamed'' about Iraq WMD to have reason for war”, whose title tells the story--the answer is Hussein will bring everyone he has to down with him. There really is no honor among thieves. You would have thought that Cheney and his young ward, 43, would know that. Did you know that Iraq desperately tried to make any concessions so that this war could be averted? Please read, “Iraq Said to Have Tried to Reach Last-Minute Deal to Avert War” of November 6, 2003 The article names a Mr. Maloof, a Mr. Hage, Mr. Obeidi and Mr. Habbush as contacts for a determined Iraq bid to stop the US from attacking Iraq, and describes, “In one note to Mr. Perle in mid-March, Mr. Maloof relayed a message from Mr. Hage that Mr. Obeidi and Mr. Habbush "were prepared to meet with you in Beirut, and as soon as possible, concerning `unconditional terms.' “The message from Mr. Hage said, "Such a meeting has Saddam Hussein's clearance." No meetings took place, and the invasion began on March 20. Mr. Hage wonders what might have happened if the Americans had pursued the back channel to Baghdad. "At least they could have talked to them," he said. There were other attempts by Iraq to avert the war, but they failed. Hussein will gladly enlighten the world about how the PNAC boys turned down all of those deals that Iraq offered the US before the Iraq war that made the war not only unnecessary, but also disadvantageous to the US, except for the top 1% “Ranger” and “Pioneer” buddies. They all made out on all of the war profiteering. b. connors

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What is the advantage of capturing Hussein? | Log in/Create an Account | Top | Search Discussion

Threshold: -1: 0 comments 0: 0 comments 1: 0 comments 2: 0 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads)

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.