The Daily Ping

FROM: Chris [E-Mail]
DATE: Sunday December 14, 2003 -- 12:38:29 pm

If there is anybody on the planet that had the resources to hide from us, it was him, and even he could not do it forever.

That can't be a comforting thought for those we are still looking for.

FROM: Robert [E-Mail]
DATE: Sunday December 14, 2003 -- 1:52:14 pm

This capture makes no sense to me because I distinctly remember hearing this summer that we could't prosecute Saddamy anymore.

Sorry, the joke had to be made. :-)

What is genuinely confusing to me is that when I first turned on the news this morning at 11am, only the CBS affiliate was reporting. The other channels had fleece-for-Jesus shows and Road Rules reruns. That's quite sorry.

FROM: jk
DATE: Sunday December 14, 2003 -- 4:05:35 pm

It's my nephew's 16th bday; I sent him a card and promised him something "really cool" when I see him at Christmas. Can I count this as my gift?

FROM: Dave Walls [E-Mail]
DATE: Sunday December 14, 2003 -- 4:28:50 pm

Robert brings up a great point: On the east coast, there was quite a bit of snow. NBC was covering Saddam, CBS was waffling back and forth between Saddam and the snow, while ABC just talked snow. Further evidence that the networks are obsolete.

On a side note, my mother called me to let me know first (I'm a bit sick, and slept in), so while I had the TV on, the picture of Saddam's medical exam came up, to which my mother deftly replied, "He looks like a poor man's Captain Lou Albano".

I can't top that.

FROM: Robert [E-Mail]
DATE: Sunday December 14, 2003 -- 5:23:22 pm

I thought he looked more like Charlie Manson, but that's a good pull from your bro.

FROM: Ace High
DATE: Sunday December 14, 2003 -- 11:18:34 pm

I wasn't certain that Saddam was still alive. I'm even more surprised that he would allow himself to be taken alive.

FROM: elwood
DATE: Thursday December 18, 2003 -- 12:00:35 am

It's a symbolic victory of sorts

symbolic? dumbass best sums up that comment.

FROM: Dave Walls [E-Mail]
DATE: Thursday December 18, 2003 -- 9:18:14 am

"South Park" brought back Saddam Hussein last night, although now they were using the head of the captured Saddam (with the post-captured beard and all)..turns out Saddam was trying to take over Canada again...the bastard!

"South Park" -- Just as brilliant as ever.

FROM: Paul
DATE: Thursday December 18, 2003 -- 11:02:04 am

elwood: symbolic? dumbass best sums up that comment.

Care to elaborate on why my statement is "dumbass" to you?

FROM: Anon E. Mous
DATE: Sunday December 28, 2003 -- 5:39:33 am

Largely because most of the people rallying this and ramping it as a major change of the guard in a worldly sense tend to think that now that we have him in capture, that it's going to somehow magically change the public opinion of the U.S. of A. in other people's eyes around the world.

Hence "SYMBOLIC", as what it achieves beyond what we had achieved already by uprooting his entire regime from power, is rather "minimal" if you have half a brain about you and think about it. It achieves nothing more than what has been achieved; nothing more, nothing less. He was but one person that worked together with a large group of people, whether in sworn allegiance to his stance or in fear of it (and without power, comes little fear to enact); and that's what provided his power, if he had that much power "worldly" to wield.

Fact is.

Those that hate us, will still hate us, and fight tooth and nail under some new leader that despises us equally or greater, because of a larger and more profound cause that we gave them logic/stupidity to fight under, and the chain of command will shift as it "ALWAYS" has. That's evident by the fact that there's been more American troops die since the war ended, than there was lose their lives "DURING" the war.

So I don't see anyone's opinion changing post-war, except for the modicumb of people that used the "protests" as a fashion statement more than a pro vs. con rationale of "Why are we doing this really?" and what is right vs. wrong in the grander scheme of things.

Something no U.N.-participating country has seemed to waiver on even after we conquered Iraq, won the war (DUH), and made more of a public presentation of ourselves and thereby a greater potential target down the road. Which is EXACTLY why Tony Blair's popularity in Great Britain still teeter-totters amongst his people, and perhaps was maimed more by the war than anything.

The British people (WWII? Ireland?), and many European people, have experienced terrorisms for centuries on large scale levels, and "FEAR" it and "RESPECT" it because of the suffering it's caused them. Cowardly? Let's think about this. When there's a will there's a way, and if you're short-armed in terms of financing and weapons capabilities, you become resourceful like our very own U.S. Minutemen who brought guerilla warfare against the British in making us a "FREE" United States of America post-13 Colonies. We couldn't defeat mother England by lining up via conventional rules of etiquette in war, and fighting in an open field like was deemed "proper". If we went that route, we'd still all be British ruled and have taxation without representation. That in turn let the Viet Cong use the same/similar tactics against us in Vietnam.

Evolution of war.

You could argue France and Germany changed their stances. You're right, at least on the political front; most of the civilian people still think we're wrong by poll. That's largely because they (governments) had the biggest entities to hide in what they'd provided Iraq in terms of weaponry black/grey market. Those that didn't have anything to hide, or weren't in it to look "chic", still haven't changed their opinion's one way or another from before the war. Not that we've caused a gigantic riff about France and Germany. It seems that a greater effort has been enacted to ignore that little glaring thorn, than get uppity and enraged about it. The French/German bashing dissipated about as fast as it came to fruition amongst our people.

I do admit.

Hussein's capture is good (DUH), but I don't know that it "CHANGES" anything substantially beyond what happens when you remove someone like a Betty-Lauren Maltese from power in Cicero, IL. If you, FOR A SECOND, think Cicero is any less corrupt than it was in the years before Betty-Lauren, or her late husband dating back to Al Capone; I assure you, you're one naive pup and it's only a matter of time before it's back to the same ol' same ol' and perhaps even stronger levels of corruption. It's the way of Cicero, and I don't ever see that changing, not in small or large part. It's the town that Capone built into what it is, and it still rings true. Even with Federal intervention, I know of at least "ONE" quite comical instance involving campaign-related affairs outlined in the area papers, and that's the "OBVIOUS" stuff. Nothing has changed. Mark my words.

When you chop the head off a worm, does not your worm infestation multiply?

Likewise.

I don't see Iraq changing much in that regard, nor Afghanistan which is still "VERY MUCH" in chaos post-liberation. If anything, we might've just given rise to another bin Laden to enact an agenda (same as our allies did in WWI that led to WWII) and turn the countless angst-filled Muslim people of Iraq (added to Afghanistan) into a larger Al Quaida threat than we have had to deal with already. We have to tread lightly now that what we've enacted ourselves to has been done. What we do post-haste is worse than being haste most often.

If you go by what Nostradamus has supposedly foretold and believe in that level of prediction it sorta' sounds like what he openly and quite broadly (never said it was detailed) has declared destined to happen. Even if you think all of that is hogwash (and I am admittedly skeptical) you can't deny that we still have a greater force lurking in Al Quaida and bin Laden and his numerous superiors in the underground/unknown than Hussein ever was out in the open. I mean, Saddam couldn't even uphold Kuwait against us, and had nothing in terms of ground troops and large-scale weaponry after the Gulf Wars. Not that his aviation forces were that strong during the first Gulf War, as his arsenal was largely second-hand French Mirages, former Soviet MiG's, and ex-US F4 fighters (antiquated, which is why we sold them to them, we were replacing them with F16, F14, F15, F/A18, F117A, et al. and various other planes) that we provided to Iraq in the war against Iran when Hussein was an ally of the U.S.

Which is exactly why the "dumb***-es", well no need to proliferate with further droll obscenities, fail to see that there was a record # of American and Iraqi people killed just in the last handful of days by other Iraqi's who still hate us and what we've done. This is "post-capture" of Hussein, so the whole idea that we've achieved anything remotely symbolic can even be argued, as the Iraqi people is the greater force we need symbolic notions with, not our own patriotic ilk who bleed red, white, and blue no matter what.

Fact is.

We have a guy that was bearded as a disguise, hiding for his dear life (knew he was screwed), and living in a 6 foot hole underneath a piece of styrofoam. I don't see that as anymore/less of a threat than the disgruntled bum living on lower Wacker Drive under a USA Today, and honestly think that the bum is more of a threat because of the greater "unknown" commodity involved. Bin Laden and his countless cohorts still and always has been the MAJOR threat. They're still on the loose, and the longer we are lulled into complacency enough to "RELAX" for an instance, the bigger the threat they can and will become.

Scary stuff, at least to me, and should be to anyone in this world today.

...and Osama's still apparently on the loose.



What was our goals in this? Let's refresh our memories:

Well originally it was to castrate a supposed chemical weapon/nuclear empowerment in Iraq. Yet it appears that North Korea has had more of a nuclear threat there than Iraq has EVER had, and there are likely 100's of countries large and small with chemical capabilities that we probably have no "INTELLIGENCE" reports over that are equal to or greater than Iraq's stockpile. I don't see us going after them and we're still very much in a "Needle in a haystack" search in Iraq to not look like we presumed guilty in a country that prides itself on "Innocent until proven guilty" on the necessary accusations. Hypocritical if you think about it, and I *HATE* that notion being one of us tied to that level of leadership.

Then it was to remove a ruthless dictator (convenient cop-out rationale) of which Hussein is but one of many, including many countries we're allied with. Israel being but one of the many who has killed 2:1 the Palestenian people, many of which who have fought with Coke bottles and rocks; with mere handfuls finding the resources necessary to compete with the level of weaponry (in their case, C4 is the weapon of choice, or those few that come into the wealth to procure some portable missile launchers) we've "ASSISTED" Israel in achieving (tanks, planes, bombs, a naval presence, missiles, machine guns, the whole 9 yards) by whatever means they've found possible, cowardly, brave, or otherwise (your perception). Toss in that Ariel Sharon is building an electrified wall around the West Bank, complete with castle-like gun turrets and it sure doesn't make us look very keen in the Muslim/Islamic people's eyes. Mind you, they are a people who view Palestine as a biblical presence so "PROFOUND" they'll fight to the death over it and commit acts of terror, to most of us; it's just another piece of land, to them it's worth going postal over. The faster we let Israel fend for itself, or let the U.N. work to defend Israel per need if it gets bigger than that, the better off we "ALL" as Americans are by minimizing our need to be omnipresent.

I mean think about it.

Not like we're going after China for Tiananmen Square, now are we? Wasn't that an atrocity of major and epic proportions worthy of fighting for the civil liberties of a people? No, we had more SENSE than take on a force the size of ours or greater. Lord knows they have nuclear capabilities and have had them for ages. Chemical weapons? Probably as many as we have stockpiled for "purposes" we deem necessary. The difference really is, that China is a major force (akin to Nazi Germany) and we don't wish to wage war with them, because there's little need to do so (China isn't offensive like Germany was). Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya; similar or greater atrocity levels per capita, and far easier to leverage against.

Without taking terrorism into account. Which is the great unknown, and a great concern to fear for what it can bring. September 11th should ring in all of our minds on how bad something like this can rock a country. Granted, it gave us great solidarity amongst a very proud and strong people, but blind patriotism can be bad too. Do not deny yourself this analysis for your own good, because it can cause poor judgment on overly swift knee-jerk reactions. Which is what many of the European people fear for us, being that we're fairly-much novices to such epic terrorist attacks against our people en masse.

Beyond that.

Anyone figure out who it was spreading the Anthrax around our country, a strain that was ADMITTED in our own U.S. News to come from our own U.S. government stockpile for testing?!? Funny how we're dead sure that Iraq had chemical weapons, but we can't even figure out who it was that got the Anthrax out of our repositories and sent it to Tom Daschle and countless others, killing "U.S. CIVILIANS" in the process. We probably will never know beyond the shadow of a doubt in that regard.

Yet, no mention of it? Noone seems to even pay a second thought about it. It's like it's completely vanquished from our memories. Gone.

That scares me more than Iraq and Afghanistan ever did as a whole. That something of that level can be "obliterated" from thought amongst a people that lived in "FEAR" of the mail service and what it could bring to us in terms of plight.

I'm more scared by the knee-jerk reaction via the Patriot Act which violates countless Constitutional Rights in an effort to make things safer, when in fact, many of our safety precautions weren't being enforced to the levels that they were designed to work at. We became weak in our complacence of enforcing laws, not in our lack and breadth of laws/restrictions. I fear complacency again, and it scares me to no end. Like a calm before a storm, it's easier and more devastating when we're lulled into false senses of security to weaken our guard. We shouldn't ever weaken it again.

Just some thoughts to ponder in the grander scheme of things. I still think there is, and always has been, bigger fish to fry than Saddam Hussein. I still do. We need bin Laden badddddd. Even at that we need to be careful to not make him or any of his men a martyr amongst his ilk. We turn them into a revered entity amongst their sadistic fanatical parties, and we cause more problems for ourselves.

A bad symbolic move if there ever was one.

FROM: poo
DATE: Friday January 16, 2004 -- 12:15:32 pm

ouyt

FROM: laurie
DATE: Thursday June 30, 2005 -- 4:50:39 pm

I heard they captured Bin Ladin too
They sprayed the area with viagra and the little prick popped up