Saddam Died....

[anveshan 0]

Saddam died. The hero of our street lay dead on the roadside.

During the night, while on patrol, some speeding vehicle might have knocked down dead.

Or may be some VHP or Shiv Sainik, not liking his Arabic name might have murdered him.

Or may be a few American supporting Christians, aided and abetted by the CIA might have killed him, because Saddam have many faces, they say.

 

Whatever be the reason behind, our Saddam lay dead, and it was not a death natural.

But no police inquiry, no post mortem, because Saddam was not a ‘human’, they say.

 

Saddam was the darling of our street. From where he came from, what is his ancestry, no body knows.

Who was his godfather that baptized him ‘Saddam’, still remains a mystery. Was he converted was a serious subject that was debated upon seriously. But because of his beef eating habits, the Brahmins of the area was sure either he was a born Musalman or a sudra convert. He cannot be a dwija, they asserted.

 

But Saddam was quite indifferent about or oblivious of his origins. Like Gautama the Buddha. He came here as a four-year-old. Tall, handsome and energetic he was, with a radiant face and inquisitive eyes. First he was seen playing football in the children’s park. Some children brought him home, I mean, to the doorstep. They gave him food, vegetarian and non-vegetarian. The parents would not allow them to let him in because he did not belong to the upper caste Pomeranian; he was a bastard street dog.

 

He slept on the pavements. The rebel Banyan tree, in spite of being a Hindu and standing in front of the Vishwanath Mandir, sheltered him from rain and sun. He slept mostly during the day. During night he was a swaymsevak , took the onerous responsibility of guarding the houses and shops of the street. If some strangers or trespassers came to his notice, he will report it to the night guards of the area. One day he himself caught hold of a robber by neck. Saddam became famous. Journalists came to interview him. His photo appeared in the city newspapers. He really became a hero within a year’s time!

 

Saddam was part and parcel of the ‘human’ society of our street (though he was not an accredited member of any organization). When Mayaji’s Elephant procession with slogans like “inko maaro jute` chaar”, “ Atal Bihari, Atal Bihari, UP desh hamaara hai”, he would be in front, with the BSP’s decorated elephants and the children of the street accompanying him. Whenever Soniaji or Advaniji came to the Municipal Park to give a bhaashan, Saddam would be sitting in the front row, with the children.

 

When a death happened, in a Muslim, Hindu or sudra house, he will be there, waiting outside with the crowd, offering his condolences. Whenever the crowd gloated over the glory of a departed soul, he would wag his tail continuously, as if in complete agreement. He would also accompany the funeral procession, if they all went on foot. On Baisakhi and Gurupurb days, he would be standing before the gurudwara and would accept if any prasad was offered to him. On every Tuesday he reported at the Lakshmi Narayan Mandir. He did never bring fourth any offerings for Lakshmi Narayan. What can he offer to the Lord, who has offered the entire cosmos to him? Lakshmi Narayan’s devotees used to offer him poorie chhole` and he accepted it with great gratitude. During the Arabic month of Ramzan, he visited every Muslim house in the locality during the nights and everyone offered him sumptuous meals.

 

So, Saddam died. There was nobody there to offer condolences. There was no funeral procession for the one who attended every funeral procession of the locality. No local rajneeti pramukh came to inquire about his death. Only children shed genuine tears. For they have lost a great friend.

 

[Tarun 6]

Saddam was transferred out of Iraq by NSA just before UN weapons inspectors left.

Not even CIA was privy.

Playing poker on our White House lawn with Usama & Noriega?

Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Adolph lived till at least 1962.

So many independent reporters injured & killed by "Coalition of the Willing"

Ride embedded/inbedded, u ride right; get it!?

Give them an offer they can't refuse.

What u r shown is what they want u to c.

3 Days of the Condor; Wag the Dog; Capricorn One; get with it...

[Guest guest]

But so sad as well, because all the people of this controlled planet are horribly manipulated.

 

There cannot be death to any of our enemise, because we must have their p[icture in order to form our will to approve of the demons using our military to cull the population, pol pot style.

 

America will not approve for war based on idealogies, because America is well below even trying to understand ideas. We need our ten-minute hate, the picture of the enemy welded into our consciousness. Why would the power boys kill a good ten-minute hate figure.

 

My guess is that he (saddam) will turn up in the protection of another govt, giving US another reason to invade another as well (if they have something we want). Or bin laden, or maybe a newly produced "enemy photo" that we will be led to believe is another "Hitler" (also an intelligence produced enemy) or Stalin (who was our dear ally).

 

and the peaceniks are called "sheep"!

 

later, mad mahax

[stonehearted 0]

Thanks, Tarun and mahak, for your honesty. Anyone who buys without question the images they see on TV might do well to watch, as Tarun suggests, Capricorn One and Wag the Dog (the latter of which was inspired by Sr. Bush, not Clinton, by the way).

 

It's a show, folks, with logos and theme songs. What made CNN as big as it has been the last few years? (Answer: Gulf Wars I.) Meanwhile, our oh-so-smart bombs whack folks in residential neighborhoods and markets like nobody's business.

[theist 1]

Yeah and to think everything you see is concocted is just the flip side of the same coin.

 

I think you all have been taking Baghdad Bob too seriously when he was saying it was just a illusion created for TV theat US tanks entered Baghdad and the US troops were occupying a palace.

 

Even Arab TV no longer believes that one.

 

Why not just admit it was a just war and get it over with. It will only hurt for a little while a then you will feel better.

 

[stonehearted 0]

theist: Yeah and to think everything you see is concocted is just the flip side of the same coin.

 

Well, I'm not sure anyone here made such a suggestion. I'm just suggesting caution in our consumption of TV images.

 

Who's Baghdad Bob? The goofball from the "information" ministry? I had to admire (in a rather perverse way, admittedly) the great job he did of acting so gleeful while things were crumbling under his feet. It was surreal indeed.

 

As for whether it's a just war, that's an assessment that must be made carefully, with the criteria made clear, not just a matter of propaganda (and let's admit that both sides have done plenty of propagandizing). I definitely vote for getting it over with. Maybe it will only hurt you for a little while; I think others may be more profoundly affected.

 

It occasionally stikes me as odd that we get all sensitive to the suffering of the Iraqis when it's inflicted by Saddam Hussain, but we're quick to shrug off the suffering we inflict. (Oh, sorry, Rush--I forgot that Saddam is responsible for all of it. Meanwhile American companies like that Halliburton subsidiary make a killing off the war's aftermath.)

[theist 1]

Yes that is Baghdad Bob, nicknamed by the media. I called him Baghdad Louie but Bob will do.

 

A question. how do you know there were any bombs that fell on civilians? Or that there was even a war at all?

 

Yes we have to try to be intelligent in what we accept from any source and certainly the media. It is just that I notice those that opposed the war never speak to the torture chambers and oppession that those Iraqi's were under.

 

Remember that inaction is also a form of action. A great crime would have been to continue and turn our heads away and not do the needful. Think hostage situation. Tough choice. When you fail to talk the hostage taker into freeing the captives what do you do?

 

That that opposed this war have NEVER given a viable alternative. Except maybe the ridiculous "give UN sanctions more time".

[livingentity 0]

The news just did a clip on all the "sayings" of Bagdad Bob - it is better than any comedy show I have ever seen. I am surprised he did not show up on TV today and saying that we are still not there while sadam's statues were being ridden down the street.

 

That guy is pathetic. Well, he is out of a job now as is the Iraq Ambassador in the UN.

[Guest guest]

I guess I don't watch enough TV to know what's-his-face has a nickname.

 

theist: how do you know there were any bombs that fell on civilians? Or that there was even a war at all?

 

I'm not sure I understand the point of the question. I believe there's a war becuas you say so.

 

I'm not anti-war. I've been urging careful thought, that's all. Our culture is one of happy consumption of TV images, and I'm suspicious of that. I don't trust anyone much, especially those attached to some materialistic ideology. Right, left--it's all a path to death. And do you think that krishna consciousness is not so broad that there's room for Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, or whoever? My own position is that there's a plae for qualified violence in certain situations. You asserted the justice of this war, but I didn't say you were wrong. I said such assertions should be carefully considered. Whose criteria would you use? Aquinas'? Then you need to go through the criteria he gives and sort them out. It's the same if you use another set of criteria--make them and evaluate accordingly. To the extent this war actually is just, those on "our" side are okay, but only to the extent the war is actually just.

 

theist: I notice those that opposed the war never speak to the torture chambers and oppession that those Iraqi's were under.

 

Then you're not paying much attention. I conceded Saddam Hussaein's demoniac character, as has practically everyone I've heard. Bullies like Limbaugh like to characterize everyone who's not a W cheerleader as lovers of Saddam, but you and I both know that's so much hooey. What I notice, though, is that the cheerleaders rarely directly or seriously address the very real suffering of the victims of "collateral damage." I'm just saying we need to keep both in mind, nothing more.

 

theist: That that opposed this war have NEVER given a viable alternative. Except maybe the ridiculous "give UN sanctions more time".

 

As someone who teaches critical thinking, I naturally become suspicious of any such sweeping (no, absolute) generalization. Any alternative you don't like would never be accepted as viable. Bush repeated claimed this action ws not a foregone conclusion, that it would only come as a last resort (one of Aquinas' standards for a just war). Did anyone here really believe that he only made this decision recently--that all his claims that he hadn't decided were honest? Well, I got a bridge you migh be intersested in buying.

 

Another of Aquinas' standards for a just war is authority. Your hastage analogy is fun, but, as with all analogies, imperfect. The question is, Who gave W the authority to shoot the hostage taker? (Answer: he says the UN Security Council, but the truth is that he assumed the authority himself.)

 

I don't mind so much that you folks are all excited about this war. I do find it amusing to see the passion with which you jump on anyone who doesn't share it. I've seen what war does, and it's my conviction that no one ever wins a war. That's neither left nor right as far as I'm concerned. You characterize it however you like, and have a blast with it and take comfort in the conviction that whatever you say is absolutely correct and anyone who disagrees by however small a degree is either stupid or evil.

[Guest guest]

is me, Babhru. I wasn't able to log in and had forgotten that. Sorry.

[stonehearted 0]

le: The news just did a clip on all the "sayings" of Bagdad Bob - it is better than any comedy show I have ever seen. I am surprised he did not show up on TV today and saying that we are still not there while sadam's statues were being ridden down the street.

 

That guy is pathetic. Well, he is out of a job now as is the Iraq Ambassador in the UN.

 

stone: Aw, c'mon--the guy was a hoot! He was the comic relief. I got a big kick out of his show of optimism. I'm kinda sorry he chose not to offer his comic counterpoint to the show this morning.

[theist 1]

I think Baghdad Bob may show up on Saturday live. Comic relief in the midst of seeming destruction and chaos. Priceless.

 

As for the UN ambassador he said "The game is over". OK. Then he said he had no relationship to Saddam. Yeah right. What a way to find out you are out of work. At least Baghdad Bob has a routine to fall back on. Stand up. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[stonehearted 0]

I think you're right about Bob on SNL. Who'll do his part?

 

Did the UN ambassador really call it quits? I gotta watch more TV! (Note: I just confirmed that this is true on foxnews.com. Thanks for tipping me off. I don't watch much TV, and what I do watch is not the war. I check almost every day for about 10 minutes.

[theist 1]

I'm not sure I understand the point of the question. I believe there's a war becuas you say so.<<

 

A sure sign of advancment.

 

>>I'm not anti-war. I've been urging careful thought, that's all.<<

 

OK. Keep thinking and maybe you will figure it out soon.

 

 

>>You asserted the justice of this war, but I didn't say you were wrong. I said such assertions should be carefully considered.<<

 

It shouldn't take too long though.

 

>>Whose criteria would you use? Aquinas'? Then you need to go through the criteria he gives and sort them out. It's the same if you use another set of criteria--make them and evaluate accordingly.<<

 

Paralysis by over-thinking. Saddam killed over 180,000 people that we know of just in his own country. probably more when the silently disappeared are figured in. Then the invasion of Kuwait. not to mention the 8 year war with Iran in which he also used chemical waepons. Children being held for over five years in prison because they wouldn't join his Hitler Youth.. er Saddam's Lioncubs. How about the starving of so many of "his own" people. The list seems endless. Close Aquinas. Put your book aside for a minute. Do you really need more justification?

 

>> What I notice, though, is that the cheerleaders rarely directly or seriously address the very real suffering of the victims of "collateral damage." I'm just saying we need to keep both in mind, nothing more.<<

 

I accept collateral damage. I don't ignore it.

I notice you didn't deal with the hostage example I offered. What do you do? If you wait they will not gain their freedom and will be subject to torture with those who object dying. If you go in for a rescue some may die or get hurt in the process. You teach critical thinking. So what's your answer? Critical thinking that comes to no conclusion is useless.

 

 

>>Bush repeated claimed this action ws not a foregone conclusion, that it would only come as a last resort (one of Aquinas' standards for a just war).<<

 

You seemed to have missed the point there. It was Saddam's choice. To disarm and give full cooperation to the inspectors or their would be war. Bush was crystal clear. it was very simple.

 

 

>>Did anyone here really believe that he only made this decision recently--that all his claims that he hadn't decided were honest? Well, I got a bridge you migh be intersested in buying.<<

 

As I sid you missed the point entirely. Bush was very clear and did what he said he would. It was Saddam's choice up to the very last moment. If from that you deduce Bush was dishonest all I can say is it seems you bought your own bridge.

 

 

>>Another of Aquinas' standards for a just war is authority. Your hastage analogy is fun, but, as with all analogies, imperfect. The question is, Who gave W the authority to shoot the hostage taker? (Answer: he says the UN Security Council, but the truth is that he assumed the authority himself.)<<

 

Well it seems you did take it up, kind of. Still no answer on what you would have done which was the thrust of the example. Just more speculative paralysis. This is the nature of the UN. Also the reason it is meaningless when it comes to real world situations.

 

The authority was there from the previous war, if you consider the UN the auhtority. I don't myself. There is no world body who has that authority. But either way, the UN or ones own perception of truth is enough to act on. Even in America we have citizen arrest rights. If we see a crime being commited we have a right to intervene and stop it including the powers of legal arrest.

 

If you happen upon someone being raped and beaten what would you do? Being a teacher and not a cop would you just say"Oh I would like to help, but no one gave me the authority?" I hope not. And I am sure the victim would hope not also.

 

I know it has been 12 years and 17 resolutions later but still you should remember that the UN santioned Gulf War in 1991 was ended under the condition of Saddams full compliance for disarmament which he never gave. Even 1491 was unnecessary.1491 was just a restatement to appease the impotent hand wringing leaders of the rest of the world.

 

 

>>I don't mind so much that you folks are all excited about this war. I do find it amusing to see the passion with which you jump on anyone who doesn't share it.<<

 

Debate is common on this forum. Who cares what you find amusing. I find it sad that a college level professor can only keep questioning an issue like this and not come to a decision on what should or should not be done. Critical thinking or an endless thought merry-go-round.

 

 

>>I've seen what war does, and it's my conviction that no one ever wins a war. That's neither left nor right as far as I'm concerned. You characterize it however you like, and have a blast with it and take comfort in the conviction that whatever you say is absolutely correct and anyone who disagrees by however small a degree is either stupid or evil. <<

 

A little mean-spirited there professor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[theist 1]

Yep. All he would say is the game is over and he wished the Iraqi people well. He is all alone in New York. Where does he go? Syria maybe.

[stonehearted 0]

Perhaps I've been a little circumspect about my opinions on these matters. What I think it boils down to is impatience with armchair policy analysts. You keep badgering me about what I would do in this hypothetical situation or that. It doesn't matter what I claim I would do. Have you actually encountered a hostage situation? A rape? What did you do?

 

Have you ever served in the military during wartime? Did you have to deal with the daily reality of what happened on the ground? I did. Part of my job during the Vietnam conflict was bomb damage assessment in North and South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. I know what collateral damage is, honest and otherwise. I also maintained a catalog of targets througout Southeast Asia and participated in deciding which targets to bomb. It's easier for those who have no actual experience of war to get over it. My father still hasn't completely gotten over what he saw during and after WW II (the Big One). (After the war, he ran photo crews for the first two A-bomb tests at Bikini atoll.) If this stuff isn't abstract, if affects you.

 

You objected to my last paragraph as mean spirited. I admit it reflects impatience and apologize. If the Limbaugh self-righteousness I complain about doesn't reflect your attitude, I apologize again for misreading you. My problem with folks like him, O'Reilly, and Drudge is not their conservatism (I'm more profoundly conservative than they are on several issues) but their self-righteous bluster and hypocrisy.

 

t: Debate is common on this forum. Who cares what you find amusing. I find it sad that a college level professor can only keep questioning an issue like this and not come to a decision on what should or should not be done. Critical thinking or an endless thought merry-go-round.

 

I never said I had made no decision. I'm not sure I see the point in sharing such decisions. There's a difference between debate and what passes for it in popular practice.

 

If you think I'm passive, it's only evidence of how little any of us learn about each other through these forums.

[theist 1]

OK sorry that wasn't my intent.

 

Hare Krsna

[stonehearted 0]

That shows the limitations of these forums.

 

And, although it's not my intention to badger you, I note that you didn't respond to my questions, either. But it doesn't matter.

 

Don't you folks ever sleep?

[livingentity 0]

What's that?

[Guest guest]

Haribol, this "liberal-conservative" moniker mongering is so kneejerk and out of the realm of sensible discussion. There is no liberal stance when ya see liberman jumpin on GW bandwagon and cheering every move, there is no conservative stance when folks like swarzkoph and other retired general officers as well as conservatives are disgusted by this big waste of their money.

 

No, it is about wanton demoniac killing of the innocent for purposes that are driven down kneejerk throats without much thought at all. Read the papers, they all say it is over, because they want it over, the public cannot keep up the illusion that those 10,000 bombs just destroyed empty buildings.

 

No this aint liberal view, American and Iraqi children died because they are victims of their despotic leaders who both (bush and saddam) could care less about United Nations democratic all for no war.

 

And the war is not over, we have syria, we have iran, we have russia, and the most formidable foe we have is the Turks, who will soon declare war on Iraq now that Saddam is dead and gone.

 

No, it is a conservative call I make when I say GW BUSH is guilty of high treason against the United States. General Tommie is also guilty of treason because he ignores the security of top secret clearance.

 

And the US Military is dutifully ignoring geneva convention by not providing police after they occupy enemy land.

 

God, the bush apologists actually make me wretch. They have no philosophy, all they have is their fanatics from the pulpit pumping their jesusgod . down their throats begging them all to cheer the one bringing armageeddon down on the world to bring about jesusgods return. Well, he says "Get away from me, you workers of iniquity, for you fail to do the will of My Father." Yall may think jesusgod cheers the slaughter of muslims and US marines as gods work, But Lord Jesus Christ says he knows ye not.

 

Later' have a wonderful cheer at the great reichmon Bush, but I know the soldier returns to the gutters inhabited by my Nam counterparts and the desert storm vets. This is how bush supports his troops.

 

mad mahax

[leyh 0]

A time will come when a politician who has willfully made war and promoted international dissension will be as sure of the dock and much surer of the noose than a private homicide. It is not reasonable that those who gamble with men's lives should not stake their own. (H.G. Wells)