posted
Saddam Hussein has been captured. He was captured without resistance. It is a very ignominous end to the man who swaggered over Iraq for such a long time.
posted
Saddam is a disgrace. That he should allow himself to be captured and displayed like a wild animal is an indication that he values his life too much. The sight of him cooperatingly opening his mouth while a US soldier poked in it is one hell of a spectacle; it is how he will be remembered. He deserves every humiliation he receives at the hands of the Americans.
The resistance must continue.
[ December 14, 2003, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Daud ]
Posts: 449 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Just like a few months ago when the US forces entered into Baghdad overpowering the Iraqi resistance and in the process symbolically toppling the statues of tyranny and oppression much to the delight of the massively oppressed innocent Iraqi civilians, today, the architect of the decades of repression, cruelty and unequalled torture in the person of Saddam Hussein has finally been apprehended; and it goes without saying that there are numerous families in Iraqi to whom this capture would put an end to all their deep-seated fears.
This is a remarkable occurrence in our history and there is no end to the possible permutations that it foreshadows for overall global politics.
Saddam Hussein, quite contrary to my expectations, surrendered without a fuss around 8pm Iraqi time on 12/13/2003. He was examined by a medic and then taken into custody. One might have reasoned that with Saddam’s huge denunciation of the coalition before the war, and his continued call through anonymous sources for Iraqi civilians to continue to withstand the US entry, and his former promises to die for the cause, he would have done everything imaginable to avoid capture even if that included suicide. I suppose his much publicized ranting and raving against the US was mostly null and void if he, as the strongest visible symbol of the effort to stop the US, could not be trusted to put weight behind his numerous exhortations to his loyalists by any symbolic act that registers his rage against the US machine. At the end of the day, it turned out to be a cheap lie as he continued hiding behind the cracks in the bleak hope that the US would be frustrated enough by the Al-qaeda recruits doing his bidding that they would leave thus creating a perfect arena for his re-emergence. The shadow that has hung over Iraqi genuine aspirations for freedom has finally gone
Quite as expected, there was dancing and rejoicing in the streets of Baghdad as this news filtered into Iraqi public space. Flags were waving (and are still waving), the people were dancing, drums were rolling, and many sighs of relief had been uttered by long-persecuted and severely traumatized Iraqis as they celebrate the final end of a dictatorship. At this time, it is not far-fetched to reason that most Iraqis can see that even though Bush entered into Iraq under the questionable intent of stopping Iraq from perfecting and deploying WMDs, his persistence in Iraq even when she continued to lose support globally and lose soldiers to the struggle can only confirm that he really wanted to see the alleviation of Iraqi suffering by overthrowing this despot and offering Iraqis a unique opportunity at democratization.
Where do we go from here? Is this the catalyst needed to reinvigorate the democratization of Iraq? Is this capture really nothing but just a grand show to a largely disillusioned Arab public? Is this apprehension going to achieve the reverse purpose of unleashing a more deadly force of insurgents who would strike back with greater determination now that it appears that one of her ‘heroes’ had fallen? How would the world take this news? Where does one situate this unique piece of news? Would Saddam be tried in Iraq or elsewhere? What are the realistic chances of the US succeeding in Iraq? What happens to the security question that has plagued Iraq in recent months? How will the larger Arab public welcome this news? What will become of Iraq now? Will the largely terrorist insurgents of the Al-qaeda hue that are currently reconstituting in Iraq continue their nefarious acts? Would we see a true change for the better in Iraq in 6 months time when the Iraqi governing council officially takes over the affairs of Iraq as US finally packs and returns? The questions are endless. We shall know in due time.
However, there can be no understating the fact that the palpable apprehension under which the Iraqis had lived in for far too long has finally been calmed. It is up to the Iraqis now to openly welcome the US, and actively co-operate with her to maximize Iraq’s vast potential.
I Will be commenting further on this matter as the issue develops.
I told you earlier on that your hero Sadam was nothing but a coward. When he should have fought he ran only to be captured in a stinking hole. Don't be surprised when they catch Usama in his cave and he be shown to the whole world kneeling before the infidels. Another jihadist bites the dust.
Posts: 1532 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
You mean your hero, not mine. Saddam is not a Jihadist; he is a Baathist. True Iraqi nationalists will not be captured in the same manner.
Posts: 449 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Daud: The resistance must continue
I'm afraid to admit that Daud is right, on this particular issue, though probably not in the terrorstic way Daud seemingly intends.
quote:Originally posted by Anaedo: It is up to the Iraqis now to openly welcome the US, and actively co-operate with her to maximize Iraq's vast potential.
What an astute analysis once more by Anaedo and culminating for now in the conclusions above. I would hasten to combine part of Dauds comment with Anaedo's summary to assert that now is the time for all Iraqi stakeholders be they recognized by the Coalition or not, to lawfully speak out aggressively against any attempts to sieze or exploit Iraqi wealth, and to now endeavor in good faith without the profiteering influences of Haliburton et al to rebuild and restore Iraq their motherland, to a measure of sanity (what with the different ethnic and religious groups that constitute that nation, as well as the destructive impacts of the war) of their best potential.
The world is now watching closely. The excuses with regard to Iraq's strategic position as a potential impediment (given Saddam) in the war against terrorism, are now gone and no longer existent with the capture of Saddam.
True Iraqis and not just those foisted on for coalition and transition convenience must now legally demand that this whole affair (grossly insulting to their sovreignity)be treated with respect and dignity finally.
It is my hope they do not resort to it in the humiliating and self degrading way of terroristic acts.
posted
Saddam may have been the rat in the hole in Tekrit. But, below is the rat in the hole in Abuja. The job is not done until we flush out that rat and roast him to justice.
Posts: 365 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Dave: Right on the money! Though the west, especially the Americans tell us that the greatest evil that existed was Saddam Hussein and the "Jihadists," truth is that there are many Saddam Husseins in Africa (Obasanjo being one of them) and other parts of the third world that still enjoy American support and protection.
It is this double standard and the fact that the REASONS (the lie that Saddam had WMD) for invading Iraq that fuelled and still fuel anti-American feelings around the world. So despite the capture and humiliation of the tyrant from Tikit, I dont see people from around the world embracing Bush, nor ordinary Iraqis identifing with the American occuping forces or their hand-picked Iraqi Governing Council. If anything, I see the war taking another dimension from hence.
Question: if this Saddam of a beast were an African head of sate and there was oil in his country as it is say in Nigeria and the former was dancing to American tunes (as Obasanjo an co do), do anyone think the Americans would have hunted for him and his gang as the Americans did? Your guess is as good as mine.
Until the west, led by the Americas change this attitude of treating matters concerning ordinary Africans as though we are less human deserving of good leadership and good life at home, whatever they do will continue to be seen with suspicion.
Posts: 997 | From: Germany | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
When George Walker Bush became the 43rd president of the United States, I told myself upon hearing the hard-stance he maintained towards forging international alliances that here is a man who could very well re-organize an incursion into Iraq. At that time, I told myself that it would only be a matter of time before the US under this current administration would find enough cause to strike at Iraq or attempt to dislodge Saddam Hussein. In my wildest imagination, I would never have believed that any confrontation between Bush and Saddam (I am deliberately personalizing the conflict), would result in the termination of the latter’s long reign.
Long before 9/11, I expected in Iraq, a few air strikes here and there as was the norm in the Clinton days, and a furious Saddam lashing out and appealing to the global community. As a matter of fact, I imagined such pre-emptive measures by the US would be endured by Saddam till Bush eventually got out of office; invariably strengthening my assumption that the US was impotent against Saddam Hussein as has been witnessed by the failure of past administrations.
However, along came that dark day on the 11th day of September 2001, and changed the complex diplomatic, international, economic, social and global equations. That singular day drastically changed the face of American foreign policy. While it is true that boundless conspiracy theories abound as to whether Bush had a prior knowledge of the disaster and purposely allowed it to happen in order to draw from the cistern of apprehension that this could create, it is also imperative to be cognizant of the fact that Bush himself was an object of the attack and could very well have lost his life had the brave men and women on the fateful jet bound for the Whitehouse not acted promptly to ward off that scenario. Therefore, when Bush gathered his wits and reassessed the situation, he promised himself that he was going to fling all the might of the US military, intelligence and resources at terrorism which he perceived was the greatest threat to the civilized world in this new century.
In solidarity with the president at that dark hour of American history, many nations all over the globe sent their condolences to the US and then promised to help fight terrorism in one way or the other. Suffice it to say now that the writer thinks that the war on terrorism can only register marginal gains because as long as there is inequity in global power negotiations, or wide gaps in average standards of living amongst different countries, or the proliferation of extremist elements in diverse cultures or religions, there will always exist a fertile ground in the consciousness of the larger deprived masses worldwide for unwholesome influences to manipulate for eccentric, self-serving, divisive purposes. In that vein, I really do not believe that the US and its western allies can totally subdue terrorism even though one must heartily commend the strides they make in this area.
Curiously enough, it was not long after the US pounded Afghanistan thoroughly in search of the vagrant Osama bin Laden but with no apparent success that the pentagon came up with a totally new strategy for approaching the national security question it has tried to answer by hunting for Osama. It (i.e the pentagon and sundry bodies saddled with the task of national security) decided through some dubious, incoherent or else questionable data or evidence that Iraq had suddenly morphed into the greatest threat to the US and that Saddam was on the verge of releasing deadly weapons of mass destruction that would mark the end of us all. The Whitehouse decided that this grave and imminent danger needed to be quelled at all risks. Citing all manner of documents and banking on the goodwill of people everywhere, the US thus began the pursuit of what I could only consider a questionable agenda, to topple Saddam Hussein. It was at that point that alarm bells started going off in my head. This was what I have always waited for, I told myself. This was the grand plan to enter into Iraq after all, for it was clear to me that the US would win in any conflict with Saddam, and as there was an uncomfortable economic slump, a successful prosecution of the war would definitely be a morale booster for the administration that had for months witnessed no success in its search for Osama out in the inclement, blistering heat of the lifeless, uninhabitable mountains of Afghanistan.
Months of serious diplomatic fireworks ensued. My main disagreement with US national policy at that time was not only because of its shameful manipulation of feeble elements in the UN a capite ad calcem and its outrageous bullying of the said body to realize its aim (albeit, it must be noted that of her own, the UN had actually done nothing to right wrongs in different parts of the world before this time), but also with the inconsistencies and the inability of the Whitehouse to prove effectively that Iraq had suddenly become this awe-inspiring threat that was actually on the verge of deploying WMDs to destroy or maim the United States. Also, I thought it was extremely hasty at that time to rush into Iraq even when the weapons inspectors were clearly turning out huge caches of firearms and destroying it regularly. Furthermore, lucid and irrefutable evidence existed at that time that North Korea was indeed (and still remains) more of a threat to the United States; of which neither Kim nor Bush nor indeed the whole world watching ever doubted. So, why was the US not threatening war with North Korea at that time?
George Bush kept on raising the specter of an Iraq fully armed with WMDs coldly calculating the best time to unleash 9/11 de integro, and thus succeeded in securing the approval of Congress to neutralize this ‘imaginary’ emerging threat before it metastasized. Again, he was able to have so much success convincing the average American because of what had transpired earlier. So, to war the US and her ‘coalition of the coerced’ went. Of great concern to me at that time was George Bush’s unilateralism; his distinctive inability to fully exploit the diplomatic options obtainable eerily reminded me of one Adolph Hitler. Secondly, it baffled me to no end that George Bush would threaten fire and brimstone on Iraq and hide his face to the flagrant impertinent overtures made by the ostensibly fearless North Koreans, who had not only chased out the weapons inspectors but had brazenly proclaimed to the world that they were undeniably building nukes!!
First of all, it goes without saying now that at least the pentagon, the CIA and the Whitehouse were injudicious when they conjured up questionable pieces of data to explain the barmy scuttle to impede Iraq from deploying nukes. It is obvious to all and sundry now, that Iraq never was that much of a threat. So basically, it is safe to say that the premise upon which this war was predicated had been debunked as grossly erroneous. While it is true that searches might yield scattered deposits of firearms, nothing in Iraq indicates that Saddam Hussein had a well-developed nuclear capability and was actually on the brink of exterminating the US.
However, as the war proceeded, other issues certainly gripped my attention and made me generally less unreceptive to the American offensive in Iraq.
It started with the care and precision with which this war was carried out to curtail civilian casualties. Never in the history of military warfare have we witnessed a more surgical attack. Of course, it is true that there were regrettable civilian loss of life, but great caution was taken to minimize such even though it must be said that there scarcely ever was a war in human history that did not claim innocent lives. Secondly was the prompt provision of a relief agency to help the suffering and displaced people. Thirdly, was the constant warnings by the US forces for Iraqis not to fight Saddam’s war, thus reinforcing any belief that the US was not attacking the overwhelmingly traumatized people of that region but against the Baathist power structures ab aeterno that gave the US the casus belli.
However, I must say that nothing touched my heart as on that day that Iraqis were celebrating that Baghdad had been captured and that Saddam Hussein had been chased out of power. Nothing could rival that unfettered expression of happiness and glee that lit the faces of these long oppressed people. Indeed, this man Saddam had been a dictator of the worst kind and I would not bother you with his crimes now; however conservative estimates say that under his regime, more than a million Iraqis had lost their lives one way or the other as a result of his actions. It was indeed refreshing to see these Iraqis (divided as they were along ethnic and religious lines) jump for joy in the streets of ancient Babylon as they lauded the end to their tormentor-in-chief and his equally atrocious cohorts. It was at that moment that the efforts of the US, to me, suddenly assumed a somewhat philanthropic dimension.
Before the US stated that she was going to pull out of Iraq in June 2004, one might have formed the idea that the US was to be perpetually present running and directing the show in Iraq. One might also have anticipated that the US would predominantly sit at the well of Iraq’s oil reserves and used such to compensate for her asymmetrically large energy requirements. Furthermore, when one considers that the US notion of democracy and her practice of such might actually prove to be unworkable in different parts of the world, one might also view, the White house rhetoric on Iraqi democratization, cum grano salis. Throw centuries of culture and religion into the mix, which have been at best, diametrically opposed to popular Western culture, it invariably becomes even less plausible that such a lofty goal by the US would ever materialize. It was because of these perceptions ab imo pectore that I favored the struggles against the US. In my mind, I reasoned that since the US had found no WMDs in Iraq, and that Saddam had been ousted, there really was no reason for them to hang around much longer. They could set Iraq on that path to democracy and then influence its decision from without to help fashion and remodel the country like they did with Japan and Germany, so there was no need for the US to keep soldiers down there ad infinitum as such an action will have had the untoward propensity of presenting them as occupiers. Therefore, it was a welcome relief to me when the US quickly hastened the process to completely hand back the sovereignty of Iraq to constitutionally elected representatives and ultimately pull out.
Things are not so rosy in Iraq but marginal gains have been made. Schools are open, more hospitals are being set up, there is the freedom of expression, commerce and the business sector are gradually improving, of course the banking sector is gradually replacing former the Iraqi currency that bore the images of Saddam, the governing council is making huge strides to draft a constitution and conduct a transparent election, there are thousands of willing Iraqis volunteering to help in maintaining local peace and order, electricity is still paralytic but considerably better than it had always been, there is a conscious effort by the US forces to maintain the delicate ethnic balance in the country and avoid sectarian violence, Iraq’s oil sector is being gradually renovated, the US is actively working to persuade other governments or global bodies to forgive the former Iraqi national debt incurred under Saddam, and the list goes on.
With the recent capture of Saddam Hussein, I find it difficult to believe that any Iraqi, who truly desires the best for his or her country would scowl at the efforts made by the US and her allies coupled with the tacit understanding and cooperation of Iraqi citizens. I find it improbable that any sincere Iraqi that had witnessed the long and bitter reign of Saddam Hussein and had perchance wished for an end to what he epitomized would decline to join hands with the United States to forge a better future for the people of Iraq. I find it absolutely preposterous to believe that any real Iraqi patriot whose troubled soul had been plagued by the uncomfortable thoughts that the former Baathist regime of terror might resurface would feign anger at the US and continue in diabolical schemes to kill Iraqis that want to assist the Americans or members of a world body like The Red Cross or the UN under some transparently distorted notion of nationalism. I have stressed this, ad nauseam, that I find it reprehensible, to say the least, that Al-qaeda elements or other peeved Arab fundamentalists posing as ‘freedom fighters’ would continue to thwart the sincere efforts of Iraqis at true national reconciliation and restructuring.
That said, I make no assumptions that the capture of Saddam Hussein would mean a cessation of hostilities. There are still tough days ahead, but by US persistence so far, honest and broad-minded Iraqis can see for themselves that the US is committed to the cause; which ought to spawn in them a corresponding desire to be of assistance in battling the escalating menace of radical extremist factions that crave to commandeer critical matters of national significance.
In summary, earnest Iraqis desirous of a great future for Iraq at this stage, must seize this moment as they embrace this unique news of Saddam’s capture. Let us hear you Iraqis reminisce (albeit I imagine it must be pretty unsettling to cast your thoughts back to those horrible days) on the gruesome atrocities of this wretch and then happily discuss ways that you Iraqis would punish him for his crimes against you. Let us see you engage in productive discussions concerning the future of Iraq. Let us hear you discuss the various democratic trends that are already manifesting in your polity. Let us watch as you elect your leaders. Let us watch you ensure the freedom of religious expression in your country. Let us see you all working hard to improve your economy. Let us see you rise and become a beacon of hope to other governments in the Middle East, as you diligently forge a warmer relationship with the US and proceed to reap from her wealth and experience on many issues.
A cruces salus, audaces fortuna iuvat—from the cross comes salvation (or struggles lead to success), fortune favors the bold!
Let me start by confessing that though I may not compete with you in word count, I find what you write very readable. However, I couldn’t help but tarry on this part of your present essay:
quote: Therefore, when Bush gathered his wits and reassessed the situation, he promised himself that he was going to fling all the might of the US military, intelligence and resources at terrorism which he perceived was the greatest threat to the civilized world in this new century. ……. Suffice it to say now that the writer thinks that the war on terrorism can only register marginal gains because as long as there is inequity in global power negotiations, or wide gaps in average standards of living amongst different countries, or the proliferation of extremist elements in diverse cultures or religions, there will always exist a fertile ground in the consciousness of the larger deprived masses worldwide for unwholesome influences to manipulate for eccentric, self-serving, divisive purposes. In that vein, I really do not believe that the US and its western allies can totally subdue terrorism even though one must heartily commend the strides they make in this area -by Anedo
In one breath you tell us that they can only register bare gains owing to the catalogue of reasons you advanced and then in another breath you heartily commend the “strides” they make in the war on “terrorism”. And then this gem:
quote:there will always exist a fertile ground in the consciousness of the larger deprived masses worldwide for unwholesome influences to manipulate for eccentric, self-serving, divisive purposes
Sadly the facts do not corroborate your assertion as the profile of a massive majority of suicide bombers reveal a comfortable middle class to opulent background. It is only in the blooming Biafran struggle that people believe it is the lot of the “deprived masses” to do the dirty job. These guys roll up their sleeves and apply their intellect to take the blooming battle to their enemies. And it didn’t start with them, Nelson Mandela a briliant lawyer had to learn how to make and throw bombs and was directly involved in blowing up some installations within SA to unsettle the boars and bring world attention to the SA cack.
It bothers on the absurd to award victory however marginal to Bush & Tony when facts on the ground and their own body languages suggest otherwise. I very strongly believe that the “terrorists” are edging it. Just take a look at the disruptions and closures of Embassies around the globe, the yo-yo of security alert in “the civilised” countries, the sudden death syndrome afflicting victorious allied troops in built-up civilian streets, the sharp drop in air travel and lull in the economies which has put American unemployment rate on par with some mid-East economies and the list goes on.
“This is by far the most annoying thing you wrote:
quote: However, as the war proceeded, other issues certainly gripped my attention and made me generally less unreceptive to the American offensive in Iraq. It started with the care and precision with which this war was carried out to curtail civilian casualties. Never in the history of military warfare have we witnessed a more surgical attack. Of course, it is true that there were regrettable civilian loss of life, but great caution was taken to minimize such even though it must be said that there scarcely ever was a war in human history that did not claim innocent lives. Secondly was the prompt provision of a relief agency to help the suffering and displaced people. Thirdly, was the constant warnings by the US forces for Iraqis not to fight Saddam’s war, thus reinforcing any belief that the US was not attacking the overwhelmingly traumatized people of that region but against the Baathist power structures ab aeterno that gave the US the casus belli
You must have been feeding on fox news to come up with that kinda stuff. The fact is that no less than 25,000 Iraqis mostly civilians were bombed to death by the US mavericks. I will not go into details on the competence and state of mind of the US combatants whose best training is to radio for a bomber, shoot at villagers or down each other in silly and bizarre friendly fire. Based on a silly intelligence two maverick bombs were dropped in a high-density suburb because Sadam and sons were supposed to be dining there.
The capture of Sadam:
It would have been more interesting if the news was about finding the weapons of mass destruction which was adduced as the reason for going to war in the first place. If Britain and America will continue after the removal of Tony and Bush, I can’t for the life of me fathom why Iraqis will change and cease loving their nation because a leader has been removed.
The usual American hype and the dramatic announcement of Sadam’s arrest may fool some people. Some of us are not taken in. I would have been more impressed if Sadam was found with some sophisticated communication gadgets. A few weeks ago the much-discredited intelligence was credited with saying that Sadam was co-ordinating the terror attacks on the US and allies from his hiding place. Now they know better. For once Bush and Tony have told the truth that Sadam’s arrest will not signal the end of attacks. It is a victory for the terrorists i.e. getting Bush and Tony to tell their countrymen the truth.
As for Sadam, they may have just rescued a prince of medes and Persia from boredom. History teaches that kings of Babylon have their moments when hubris reduce them to crawling beasts.
I WILL BE BACK………
___________________ God bless Chukwuma Nzeogwu! Posts: 104 | From: Utrecht, The Netherland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
When Saddam was arrested, the soldiers offered him water. He refused to drink, and he said, "if I drink your water, then I have to use the bathroom." "My people are in bondage." Hardly the words of a cooperating man.
Posts: 449 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Daud What happened to that Muslim bravado, so is all hot air, all you muslim jihardist are all talk no action. We flashed your hero out of his fox hole. Next is your brother Osama, he can run but he can't hide. Very soon the long arm of super power will caught up with him. After Osama next will be baba iyabo, there will be no where for him to hide in Abuja.
If the price is right, the singing will surely continue apace.
His singing voice sounds beautiful to his interogators even now.
In the meantime, the abundantly available ordinance he left for all, is definitely making Nationalistic Jihadistic Matyrs out of even the lowliest crooks who can pull the trigger for whatever gripe.
We celebrate now Their heroism. Kwo?
___________________ YA CAIN'T KEEP A GOOD MAN DOWN :) Posts: 1182 | From: TEXAS | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
Try as much as you can but the fact is most Arabs and Muslim faithfull feel completed humiliated at the sight of infidel soldiers picking off lice from the head of their once great commander.What a coward Saddam has turned out to be, this was how Mullah Umar and his gang in Kandahar cut deals with local warlords and headed for the hills when the real jihad started.
I am tired of all this mouthy cowards and and their blind supporters like Daud who cannot think for themselves, lets hear your excuse when they finally catch that flea bag Usama. Gosh I don't want to know when last he took a decent bath, pity the poor doctor who will examine him.
Posts: 1532 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Na Wa ooo. I guess we will not hear about the Vice President's former company. The company that contributes millions to the GOP and then get exclusive contracts from the government and even goes ahead to justify milking the poor tax payers like you and I millions of dollars in over payments. Now all we will hear is Saddam this and Saddam that like Saddam is the WMD that was what the war was sold on. The democrats need to wake up from their slumber and learn how the game is played.
___________________ Feel me? Ofu onye ana asi unu abia go. - Ednut Igbo-American . www.airamericaradio.com visit her. Posts: 2447 | From: Mother Earth | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
The Bush administration is sending the signal that it is fine to torture Americans when they are captured. Those of you that are rejoicing about this event should keep in mind that an Iraqi civilian was tortured to extract the information about Saddam's location.
Posts: 65 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Anyway, Bush quipped that Saddam crawled into a hole when the heat was on. We all remember that Bush crawled into a hole in Nebraska on September 11, 2001.
Posts: 65 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Paul Bremen's six-word "Ladies and Gentlemen we got him" showed Saddam Hussein was just a chicken. Whoever could have imagined that a man who terrorized his neigbors and sponsored terrorists would be caught like a rat in a spider-ridden hole?
Posts: 33 | From: Madras, India | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
