DescentBB

A tuft of fabric in the sandy dirt was what ultimately led to the US troops finding Hussein's hole. I was thinking last night about just how close we came during the capture to turning Hussein into a Loc Ness Monster. Think about it. Most news reports indicate the soldiers were about to commence a *cleaning* operation of the hole (read: toss a grenade in) when they heard some noise and up pops the spider. But for those few moments Hussein almost became a legend. Had Hussein delayed by mere seconds, there's a strong probability that with his dissheveled, bearded appearance, and the resultant physical damage a grenade in the crotch would cause, this haggard-looking homeless guy probably would have been dragged from the hole and left in the sun until a clean-up crew stuffed the remains in a bag and dumped it at the Baghdad morgue, to be incinerated or buried in a pauper's grave. No one would ever know what happened to Hussein and with Arab jungle drums and penchant for far-fetched conspiracy theories, Hussein sightings and whispers of the shadowy *Iraqi Avenger* would continue for decades. As it stands, he's humilated and shown as a coward hiding in a hole in the ground who didn't even have the nads to either turn his gun on himself or make a feeble blaze-of-glory exit from this world that would have redeemed him in the eyes of the Arabs. Phew. That was close.

just think, he could've become Elvis...

We've been trying to blow him up one way or another all year. So ....

Bash,

You think too much. Relax, take a load off. Have a beer. You will feel much better. I know we will.

I found the concept fascinating. Mere moments between history going one way or the other. But in those moments, Bush probably won re-election. Think about it. Not having Hussein was becoming quite an embarrassment and the major stumbling block toward our withdraw and handing back power to the Iraqis. If the search went on indefinitely (as it would for someone who doesn't exist anymore), the resistance would likely continue at full tempo (with them hiding the fact that Hussein was not around and they couldn't find him), we would not be able to withdraw, more Americans would be killed, it would be a monumental personal defeat for the Bush family with two generations unable to catch the elusive Hussein and a major political advantage that *Saddam, the man Bush can't catch* would provide both to his critics at home and abroad that might have led to Bush' election defeat. Not to mention the legend and rallying point it would bestow upon Hussein among the Arab nationalists. All that alternate history was in the hands of a single US soldier who (thankfully) was trained well enough not to be trigger-happy and just toss in a grenade and move on. It's Spielbergian! Like the ending scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark. We would never know. OooOooOooo, spooky.

Maybe I do think too much.

I think bash is onto something. There was a program on the history channel, I think, recently about the last B-29 raid on Japan a few days after Nagasaki was nuked. The bombers flew near Tokyo on their way to the target and so Tokyo was deliberately blacked out. It turned out that the blackout interfered with a group of soldiers who were trying to take over the imperial palace in order to prevent the emperor from publically announcing Japan's surrender. If the coup had succeded, either more nukes would have been used or maybe an invasion would have been required. It could have gone either way.

As terrifying as the nuclear bomb was, it's one of those awful decisions that no one should have to suffer. When the bomb was dropped, Japan witnessed its awesome destruction that rattled through its military and forced their surrender. Had the bomb not been dropped, there is no telling how many more lives would have been lost since the game would have continued indefinitely.

On the other hand, the US dropped two bombs - the one on Nagasaki and the one on Hiroshima. A question that runs through my mind is whether or not both were actually necessary or if a single bomb would have dealt such a tremendous blow to the Japanese army morale that they would have surrendered based on that alone.

Honestly, I pray that mankind will never use such horrific weapons against itself again, or ever find itself in a World War III situation. Thankfully, I think globalization and the "world economy" have a lot to do with why it hasn't happened yet. Despite Iraq, we are actually enduring a very long period of peace, perhaps because everyone has a piece of the greater pie and doesn't want to endanger it.

Or maybe it's the ironic comfort that comes from mutually assured destruction.

Of course, that takes countries out of the equation. Thus, it follows that the terrorist cells like al Queda will probably emerge as the greatest threat in the future - because they answer to no higher authority, don't have a piece of the globalization pie, and have nothing to lose.

According to the documentary I saw, even after the second nuke, it took several days to make the decision to surrender. Enough time passed that the US decided to resume the bombing campaign -- they took out a refinery to reduce further Japan's ability to fight. And there were still plenty of Japanese ready to fight till the end.

As for nuclear weapons, I've never understood the apparently common attitude that the use of nukes is somehow more morally reprehensible than conventional bombs. Would it have been more humane to drop 20,000 tons of incendiaries? Tokyo was fire bombed and, I think, more civilians were killed there than in the nuke attacks, but you don't hear much about that. Nevertheless, I agree with your hope that nuclear weapons are never needed in the future.

As for al Qaida, I think they do have a piece of the globalization pie, but they get it indirectly from the groups that fund them.

Tokyo was firebombed, at dawn. 800,000 were killed, most while in bed. The two atomic bombs combined I don't think cleared 150,000.

I suppose the difference with firebombing is that there is some off chance the people can escape. I realize it decimated cities and killed hundreds of thousands.

But a nuke - you have no fleeting chance in hell of getting away. You're vaporized before you know what happened.

Hmmm..I just dont see capturing Hussein as that big of an accomplishment. He has been without power for 8 months, and if for one second, anyone thinks these attacks will stop well they are just plain stupid. Interesting how people perceive things, it's almost as if Bush should fly to an aircraft carrier again and this time have a sign that says "Mission Accomplished, We Promise this Time"

Z, the eternal optimist.

Z, according to TIME, most of the Baathist-sponsored attacks have stopped voluntarily by that group while it tries to weather the current US offensive launched from information gleaned during Hussein's capture. There is even some speculation they will not start up again while they review their situation without their leader and their possible chances of amnesty and re-integration into Iraqi society. The attacks that are ongoing are from the foreign Islamicists (here's how you can tell: Jihadis kill themselves during the perpetration of an attack, the Baathists are realistic enough to realize that with their small numbers, that's not a winning strategy. Many are mercenaries that are doing it for the money anyway. They are the ones with the remote-controlled bomb attacks primarily).

Let me take a wild guess, you're a Dean supporter.

Oh, and I realize you folks will distort just about anything to place Bush in a bad light but the Mission Accomplished photo remains entirely appropriate. No undertaking of this scale really has a single defining moment when you can say *done*. It does have a series of goals that need to be accomplished in order to bring it to a close. The first was a successful war that led to the surrender of the Iraqi armed forces. Mission Accomplished. The second was the capture of the man that started this whole mess in the first place, Saddam Hussein. Mission Accomplished. The third will be the handing back of authority to the Iraqis when they are ready to control their own destiny without the country exploding into civil war and then the final Mission Accomplished banner can be unfurled and we can bring our brothers home.

Stop being such a pansy and stand up for your country sometimes. At the very least, read a newspaper every now and then before you start pissing and moaning about what's going on. You appear as clueless as Meat.

Firebombs don't leave radioactive fallout in their wake. You can end the world with nukes.

I'm perplexed at how people could possibly think Bush had anything to do with this. Sounds like everyone thinks that he singlehandedly pushed into the desert and personally dragged Saddam out of his bunker.

He didn't do squat. He made some crappy puppet speeches. Any president could have presided and had the same thing accomplished. Man, people are such lemmings.

Calling people "lemmings" is a cheap tactic designed to cover for the weakness of your point.

Any president could've done this? Counterexample: Howard Dean. Had he been president, Saddam would be in his palace, rather than in our jail. Or, had he become president 6 months ago, Saddam would be rising back to power in the chaos left by the US pulling out of Iraq, rather than in our jail. What Bush had to do with it was commitment to keep the troops there and keep them active. Now, any president with that same commitment could've done it, that's right -- but most of the people running for president this election cycle wouldn't have made that commitment, they'd have cut and run and had the troops pulling out rather than conducting raids. So Bush gets props from me.

Bush wasn't there pulling Saddam out of the bunker, but he was there making sure the troops had funding, and making sure the troops morale stayed up (on Thanksgiving, for example), and making it clear we were committed to keeping the troops in place until Iraq was ready to govern themselves. So while you think it sounds like "everyone thinks he... dragged Saddam out of his bunker", it sounds to me like YOU think Bush had nothing to do with it. But had it been any of the Democratic presidential candidates this cycle, things would not have gone this way.

What I find striking is that, before last Sunday, the inability to capture Saddam was a major failing of the war effort. Now the critics are reversing themselves and saying that capturing Saddam is insignificant.

Note to self: stop paying attention to the rantings of a certain political party.

Bush merely said 'Go do it'. Showing up at an Army base for a moral speech, that's not very much. Marilyn Monroe did that (Didn't she?) and a bunch of others. It's a token gesture, and a long plane trip.

My point was supposed to be (I'm terrible at making them) that people should be giving 'props' to the ones ones that actually did it. Finding Saddam does not influence my vote for Bush or against him one bit. His re-election is sealed, because of this? I think there is a whole lot more to look at during his Presidency (good or bad) than this. My exasperation stems from the fact that they ARE lemmings, and will vote based on the media blitz.

The reason this seals his reelection is mostly that the Democratic candidates have put so much emphasis on the fact that Saddam was still loose. They chose (unwisely) to focus their arguments on the following points:

1) The economy is crappy
2) Saddam doesn't have WMD
3) Saddam is still on the loose
4) Osama is still on the loose
5) We shouldn't go to war over oil

I cautioned against this quite a while ago -- because point 1 was bound to turn before the election, most people view points 2 and 5 as either incorrect, unproveable, or irrelevant, and points 3 and 4 can change in a heartbeat. But the Dems chose to campaign on these points, thereby making Bush's reelection a sure thing as soon as #3 changed. I don't care whether or not Bush was the guy who actually caught Saddam (major props to the guys who did!) -- just that the Dems had been criticizing Bush for not catching Saddam, which set them up for failure.

People will vote based on what the media gives them, yeah, that's true -- but they'll also vote based on what candidates give the media to give them, and the Dems all chose to gave the media points like "Saddam is still out there!" thereby assuring they'd lose votes as soon as he was captured. Now they're doing damage control, trying to give the media something new to capture the attention of voters. People will vote based not on the "media blitz" over Saddam, but based on whether or not the candidate got their attention and made them think "that person should be president!" or "that guy is so dumb (or inconsistant, or whatever) I'm gonna vote for anybody but him." After Saddam's capture, a number of Dems fall into the latter category.

Given what the Democratic party has to offer, I dont feel compelled to vote for a used car salesman to hold the highest office of the land.

And Bush is an honest down to earth man. He's been doing whatever he's been doing because he believes in it. The Democratic candidates on the other hand are nothing but a bunch of con-artists trying to woo their way into office. Unfortunately there are allot of dumb people in our country who would actually fall for that.

Testi, by your logic, Bush is responsible for nothing regarding the Iraq War. How can that be? I think if you review your feelings, it's simply that you are begrudging the man any credit for successes while roundly assigning him responsibility for failures. Can't have it both ways. Either it's all his responsibility (good or bad) or none of his responsibility (good or bad). Considering he is the Commander In Chief of our military forces, I think most folks (logically) assign it all to him. So far, imo, there's been vastly more good than bad from this war and Bush is responsibile for it all, whether he did the actual fighting or finding himself, and he will be hung or praised based on what his subordinates down the military and diplomatic chains achieve or fail to achieve. That's the way it is and the way it should be. That's the essense of management.

"And Bush is an honest down to earth man" - That quote scares me more than anything else. His entire presidency has been shrouded in secrecy, his past and present is frought with eyebrows of scandals, kickbacks, political friends, and he's an honest man? C'mon,

bash, i dont care for Dean. I really don't care for anybody. Our votes mean as little to the politicians as this bulletin board means in real life. I'm just the eternal antagonist

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Testiculese:
Showing up at an Army base for a moral speech, that's not very much. Marilyn Monroe did that (Didn't she?) and a bunch of others. It's a token gesture, and a long plane trip.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As someone who has served in the military I can assure you that President Bush showing up and giving a morale speech is no small thing. Troops absolutely respond to things like that. Especially from a President who is so popular with the armed forces.

To our military personnel overseas, or anywhere for that matter, morale is everything. That is why the USO shows have been ongoing since World War II.

NEVER underestimate the importance and positive impact a well planned pep talk has on the militaryâ??s ability and willingness to go into harms way.

One last suggestion!
To Testiculcse, never but never try to mince the type written word with a dude called BASH! Your guts will be lying on the floor and you will never know when you were even cut.

Good Job BASH!