Saddam abandoned Baghdad?
No sign of Saddam in Baghdad, waning signs of any defense from Republican Guard, and the power is cut-off (inducing civilians to evacuate)- so what else is there but for the Coalition Forces to move in for final neutralization? Maybe I've seen too many movies, but wouldn't that be a perfect time to pull the ultimate ambush? What if he has a nuclear bomb rigged in the center of the city to go off once he is assured that the Coalition Forces are well "inside" the red circle? Yeah, of course he isn't supposed to have one in the first place, but you can't ignore that he has bought/imported/used a few things as of late that ideally no one should have sold him. Could it happen, or am I just channeling Don Simpson's ghost (of Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer movie fame)?
Comments
that's my bet.
Villify him to his people? To those Iraqi's it would matter to and the greater Arab world in general, it might launch him into unprecedented hero territory for sticking it so sharply to the "evil West" so conivingly.
If he knows his days of rule are numbered, he might not care who joins the Coalition Forces in response to his actions. He'll know his days are numbered, so all that matters is inflicting the most regretful blow.
Saddam choose the urban war, and more a guerilla type of war. He know that he do not have a chance in a direct war in open fields.
Saddam will fight until the end, and if he is surrender, i guess i will comit suicide like did Hitler. I think it's the only end for these type of bloody dictator, when they are near to be cought.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
nah, he's in syria, counting his gold, if he's alive.
He appears in the Iraqi TV this morning. Even if Syria said that they where for Iras and against US , i doubt that they will be fool enough to protect Syria.
The other point is that if Saddam wanted to fly out, he would have been do that before : the US suggested him to leave Iraq peacefully and he refuse it. If he was interested only by gold, he would have done it like many african dictators. But Saddam like all the great bloody dictators, like something more than gold, he love the power. Something that money cannot replace, even if money is important to achieve it.
Originally posted by Outsider
Yeah but he'll at most kill about 1000 or so soldiers and a lot of his own civilians. And for what purpose? It will vilify him among his own people, other Arab and Muslim nations, Europe and even Russia and China. It will be the last straw for a military commitment from France and China and probably Russia. It's a no win situation. But then again, he IS a crazy f*ck.
actually with the way people are in the world today, even if he did have a nuke, and even if he set it off. they wouldnt blame him, they would say the U.S pushed him to it, or some other B.S.
Villify him to his people? To those Iraqi's it would matter to and the greater Arab world in general, it might launch him into unprecedented hero territory for sticking it so sharply to the "evil West" so conivingly.
Oh, come on. The generalizations and stereotypes have got to stop. I'm tired of it. Somehow it's now ok to be a racist? Gimme a break.
As was noted earlier by someone else, I wouldn't be surprised to find him hiding out in Syria, either.
Originally posted by torifile
Oh, come on. The generalizations and stereotypes have got to stop. I'm tired of it. Somehow it's now ok to be a racist? Gimme a break.
Is it really a fictitious stereotype? Are you saying the Arab world is actually rooting for the Coalition to drive out Saddam? I don't believe this is a simple racial dismissal, at all.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Is it really a fictitious stereotype? Are you saying the Arab world is actually rooting for the Coalition to drive out Saddam?
Your generalization is a false one, that's all. But does it matter if it's true or false? Stereotypes in general are bad. It's a lazy way of categorizing the world and forming your opinions. It's easy to discount unjust actions when "everyone" is of the same mind and that mind is not your own. It's called the outgroup homogeneity effect.
So, I'm not saying anything about what the entire Arab world is doing or feeling about this war. And even if they were against the war, could they not also have morals about the way a war should be fought? Of course not because they're all barbarians. I am against this war but I would not be happy if your absurd scenario played out. I'm against this war because I don't like the unneeded lose of life.
I guess my point is that you're grossly oversimplifying the situation and the opinions of hundreds of millions of people. It's wrong, it's racist and I wish that would be acknowledged. If you're comfortable with thinking that way, that's your choice.
Originally posted by torifile
Oh, come on. The generalizations and stereotypes have got to stop. I'm tired of it. Somehow it's now ok to be a racist? Gimme a break. [/B]
Actually, on the contrary, I didnt see anyone being racist or doing stereotypes. we are going by what the people in that part of the world themselves state.. are you saying for example, that if I said the Arab world is against Israel, that would be a racist statement, because if you beleive that would be a racist statement, then, that would infact just show that you are naive. I am not saying that every Arab is against Israel, but the majority of them are and that is a fact. So what was said in this message topic would not be racist or stereotypicall, hell, most of the Arabs are saying it themselves.
the nice thing about being torifile is you never have to make a judgment of any kind--that might indicate some form of bias.
Originally posted by mrmister
" And even if they were against the war,"
the nice thing about being torifile is you never have to make a judgment of any kind--that might indicate some form of bias.
The nice thing about being me is that I don't have to assume any kind of judgement on anyone else. I've got my own judgements about the war. I just refuse to allow myself the priviledge of assuming that they speak for an entire race of people.
It's late, so I'll respond to the rest tomorrow... night all.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Are all generalizations automatically false just because they have a racial component? I'm not saying you can't find exceptions, or that some stereotypes are just plain wrong. However, calling a spade a spade is not something I have a problem with if this is just coming down to being "2003-style" politically correct. If my generalization does not fly, then feel free to cite examples where the contrary is evident. Don't just browbeat me, and say it is politically incorrect to "think" like that.
Please don't mask right and wrong with terms like "politically correct."
Are all generalizations automatically false......
well, i'd say that no matter what generalization you make it's going to be false, because there's always going to be a handful of people/places/things that don't quite fit.
but then they're supposed to be general, not exact, so i pretty much assume that there's supposed to be an element that doesn't fit in with every generalization
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Please don't mask right and wrong with terms like "politically correct."
Geez, now it's politically incorrect to acknowledge politically correctness.