Saddam Hussein Hanged

Jan 10 5:05 PM US/Eastern

By BEN FELLER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Make no mistake about it: President Bush is admitting he's made some in Iraq. "He is responsible. He will take responsibility for the mistakes in the past," White House counselor Dan Bartlett said Wednesday, promising that Bush's speech would feature some rare presidential contrition.
With public support for the war long eroded, Bush is trying to win some back. His message: OK, I get it.
He concedes now that there should have been more U.S. and Iraqi troops and clearer rules of battle for them, and that changes are coming.
This is not Bush's natural tendency. When he admits a big mistake, the concession often comes reluctantly and belatedly.
Late in his first term, he was asked to name his biggest mistake since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He famously struggled to come up with one. He told the reporter: "I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time."
When Hurricane Katrina devastated much of the Gulf Coast and lawlessness reigned in New Orleans, Bush said he took responsibility for a slow, bumbling federal response _ after the city's mayor said federal officials "don't have a clue."
In late 2005, while defending the Iraq war, Bush took blame for faulty weapons intelligence that led to the U.S. invasion.
"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said. "As president, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq."
Bush has also apologized sometimes for his choice of words, such as wanting to capture Osama bid Laden "dead or alive" and challenging U.S. foes to "bring it on" after the terrorist strikes on America.
"In certain parts of the world, it was misinterpreted. And so I learned from that," Bush said in May. He added that the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was "the biggest mistake that's happened so far."
When Republicans lost control of Congress in November, Bush wasn't on the ballot. Yet he acknowledged that his own political standing didn't help.
"As the head of the Republican Party, I share a large part of the responsibility," Bush said.
Now comes the new way forward on Iraq.
Bartlett said Bush knows that most Americans aren't satisfied with the progress of the war.
"President Bush is in their camp," Bartlett said. "He's not satisfied. He's going to say the strategy was not working."
And that, yes, he's responsible.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/10/D8MIM6I84.html

Let's hope that Bush's new strategy will start to affect. It would about time. Too many lives have been lost already and even a civil war is not complete wrong thing to say when thinking the current situation in Iraq.

I remain sceptical about the US Military bringing the peace, but let's see...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodeye

The fact only is that more guns bring more violence. This was the main point in Moore's document also. If everyone have free access to guns, it is easy to predict that this will bring problems. Not everyone will behave like they should with firearms. If you need money and you don't have it, it is easy to predict what is going to happen when instead of money you happen to have a criminal mind and a Smith&Wesson in your pocket. In Finland you can own or get a gun if you have a good reason getting one. Police permits the rights to get one and you should be able to prove that you are going to need it for hunting or sports. Usually you need to be a member of a hunting club or shooting club. Guns should be in a locked place in houses and they are not to be used in self defence. Never.



One should always be aware of the history. America has done many great things in WW1 and WW2 when they were helping Europe to get rid of Adolf. I think that the most important thing that history can teach us is how to avoid the mistakes that have been done in the past. Both World Wars have arisen mostly because of the unstabile situation in Europe. I think there's no need to for me to point out the reasons that lead to wars, everyone should be aware of those.

At the moment Europe has been in peace for a long time. Maybe the longest time in history, I don't know but I'm really happy about that fact. Maybe EU (even it is what it is) is brining more and more stability to this continent. Other thing that I hope is affecting is the fact that maybe we've learned not to fight in Europe. We are concerned what will be Beckham's new team. That is the biggest problem right now.

Unfortunately other parts of the world are still unstabile. The are wars in middle east and Africa. When US takes part to these Europe has always more careful attitude towards these conflicts. Why? Could it be that we've had our share of wars? Could it be that we've learned something? There have been wars in France, Germany, UK, Spain, Italy and other european countries in every century of the history. Could it just be that we've learned something and try to avoid situations like that to happen again.

I hope so. I hope that we don't have to witness war in 21st century in Europe. I hope that it won't happen, but I remain pessimistic about it.

---

Well, I will comment on Bush in a second. To answer your idea on gun control, every culture has had a different history with guns. Switzerland has people with guns in every closet, and not just pistols, sub-machine guns. Yet they dont' shoot each other. The love of guns and the use of them in the US is part and parcel of the frontier history and culture where people carried and used guns because in the beginning, there was no law on the frontier and people had to hunt to survive. It has infused the American culture, so it isn't the guns, it is the people using the guns. Americans are proud of their individual rights to the point that they will defend them at any cost at times.

The only way to understand it is to travel to America, and realize that you don't see guns every day, and despite the stereotypes and movies, gun crime while above what it is in Europe, really isn't seen unless you are in the wrong end of town, which of course can happen anywhere. I don't feel any more unsafe in 99% of America than I do at home in Canada. That said, Canada has controlled hand guns for years, and now has a registry for long guns, which is a total waste of time and money, since criminals don't use rifles and shotguns, and if they did, they would not register a weapon so the cops would know where to go. Bureaucratic morons would figure a criminal would register their weapons I guess.

AS for your take on Europe and its attitude towards war, there is 2 factors in play IMO. First off, after two major continent wide bloodbath's, Europeans have had their blood lust for war sated forever I suspect. It has been done to the point that they no longer recognize maybe when they should examine the use of force. The UK is the exception to this historically, maybe because the UK has a more robust foreign policy historircally. The former East Bloc nations also may not be more war like, but understand how fragile freedom is as they just escaped the yoke of Moscow.

The other factor why Europe has avoided war for the most part (Yugoslavia is an ethnic stew gone bad) is that they are now realizing that they are not so different from each other in their values. A lot of those values have come from Scandanavia, which is socially progressive, which is good for preaching tolerance, something that needed to be taught in Europe before the wars; but I think also, they were united in a common goal to avoid any more conquest from the USSR, and while they didn't want a war with the Russians, they understood that you had to be on your guard. There was/is an understanding that defence is important but only defence. It is a different world, and Europe learned its lessons the hard way in 1914 to 1945. Democracy is the key to peace, and Americans take this notion one step further in that they aren't afraid to export it. I think that is where it offends Europeans. Americans tend to be too enthusiastic for European tastes!!!

I guess after being dragged across the Atlantic to participate on two wars on European soil, the Yanks figure they cant just sleep on their side of the lake, so they stay involved. This mess in Iraq is just part of that foreign policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodeye

Let's hope that Bush's new strategy will start to affect. It would about time. Too many lives have been lost already and even a civil war is not complete wrong thing to say when thinking the current situation in Iraq.

I remain sceptical about the US Military bringing the peace, but let's see...

---

Woodeye, where you are right is to remain skeptical. Not that the US cant bring peace, but they likely don't have the men to do it. It will come down to the Iraqi police and defence forces to do the job. They have to have the will to stop all of the violence and they have to do it with no favour to any side in the conflict.

The thing is, if Bush wasn't so sensitive to not dragging too many men into the fight, and listening to Rumsfeld in being told they could do more with less, then the ethnic strife wouldn't have happened. Read Gannex's take on what happened, and you realize it is maybe too late for Bush, but he is going to try anyhow, and he doesn't care what his opposition back in the US does to him in Congress. That is a man who believes he is doing the right thing, and while it has been beat to death on here that maybe it wasn't the right idea, the fact remains a leader who has the guts to stick to his idea and principles and doens't bend and twist with the polls is sometimes admirable.

Of course, Eki and Tomi want him in jail, so I will just pretend for one moment there is a rational discussion underway here....and just say that Bush may get out of this yet, although I think the results will be mixed. It pretty much is out of Bush's hands now, it is in the hands of the common Iraqi's and their fledgling government. IF people there are serious about making a changed Iraq, this is their time to prove it. I hope they can, they deserve better than the last 30 plus years of Saddam, with his purges, oppression, wars and corruption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Switzerland has people with guns in every closet, and not just pistols, sub-machine guns. Yet they dont' shoot each other. The love of guns and the use of them in the US is part and parcel of the frontier history and culture where people carried and used guns because in the beginning, there was no law on the frontier and people had to hunt to survive. It has infused the American culture, so it isn't the guns, it is the people using the guns. Americans are proud of their individual rights to the point that they will defend them at any cost at times.

...since criminals don't use rifles and shotguns, and if they did, they would not register a weapon so the cops would know where to go. Bureaucratic morons would figure a criminal would register their weapons I guess.

---

Yes, in Switzerland people tend to keep guns in their closet but that is because they need to practise their arme skills every now and then. And government even gets these guns to men I think. So my question is why the Swiz know how to use them properly? Maybe it would be time for Americans to think if the Wild Wset still exists in the 21st century?

And 50cent and other morons like that driving with bullet vests on and uzi in a pocket really don't help too much. I say it again, gun in wrong hands is always dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

It is a different world, and Europe learned its lessons the hard way in 1914 to 1945. Democracy is the key to peace, and Americans take this notion one step further in that they aren't afraid to export it. I think that is where it offends Europeans. Americans tend to be too enthusiastic for European tastes!!!

---

That's why I have somehow felt every now and then that the US is on a crusade in Iraq. They have a huge will to turn it into a democrazy, even that it never has been a one. There have always been kings or sheiks or warlords in the leading positions in arb countries. Still US try to seed democrazy there? Didn't it cross anyones mind to ask if that is what people in Iraq need? Is there any chance that democrazy will ever work there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodeye

Let's hope that Bush's new strategy will start to affect. It would about time. Too many lives have been lost already and even a civil war is not complete wrong thing to say when thinking the current situation in Iraq.

I remain sceptical about the US Military bringing the peace, but let's see...

---

Bush doesn't realize the problem in Iraq is too MANY American soldiers in Iraq, not too FEW. If they wanted to live at gunpoint, they had it with Saddam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Bush doesn't realize the problem in Iraq is too MANY American soldiers in Iraq, not too FEW. If they wanted to live at gunpoint, they had it with Saddam.

---

Eki, you really think NOW that they have gone there they can just up and leave? The carnage would be worse and carry on even longer. No, once they made up their minds to go in, the debate isn't whether they shouldn't have been there ( I have said they didn't have it all figured out) but how much do they have to do to put things right. The reason the ethnic/religous killings has gone on is because there isn't enough Americans to deal with it. Lets face the reality Eki, you would bitch if left 4 seconds after Saddam was kicked out of town. You have your agenda, and it clouds any argument I give you.

They lived in gunpoint with Saddam alright, and you were ok with that, but now you whine that the Americans might be too tough on them? Strange logic indeed, but it is what I have come to expect from you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodeye

Yes, in Switzerland people tend to keep guns in their closet but that is because they need to practise their arme skills every now and then. And government even gets these guns to men I think. So my question is why the Swiz know how to use them properly? Maybe it would be time for Americans to think if the Wild Wset still exists in the 21st century?

And 50cent and other morons like that driving with bullet vests on and uzi in a pocket really don't help too much. I say it again, gun in wrong hands is always dangerous.



That's why I have somehow felt every now and then that the US is on a crusade in Iraq. They have a huge will to turn it into a democrazy, even that it never has been a one. There have always been kings or sheiks or warlords in the leading positions in arb countries. Still US try to seed democrazy there? Didn't it cross anyones mind to ask if that is what people in Iraq need? Is there any chance that democrazy will ever work there?

---

Gangsta Culture in the US is a unique thing, but hey, this is what happens in an unhibited society where cultural groups are still trying to establish their place. The black culture of the US is tainted by the bad relations with whites going back to that slavery thing, which of course, the US killed more of its soldiers in a Civil war to end slavery than any other war they have been in. To get the US gun culture, you just have to put it down to the US being so free, that you are free to be a moron. I stand by the fact though, guns don't kill people, the people holding the guns kill people. People who commit crimes go to jail in civilized societies, and I guess the problem is in the US there is a thought that it is the only way out for some people. IT is an education thing.

As for Iraq and democracy, Woodeye, you are falling into Eki's feeling that the Iraqi's are too stupid or too inferior to get democracy. Never mind 80% of the country voted for the first time where they didn't have Saddam's goons making sure they voted....FOR HIM. Iraq in two elections had a higher turn out than the last 3 or 4 Canadian elections I can remember, and that is in a nation where people were threatened by terrorists on the way to the polls, and polling stations were actually physically under fire at times. You figure out how to deduce that. Afghani's have had two votes now, and again, over 80% turnouts. Both elections were monitored by the UN and seen to be done with proper measures. Don't tell me these people don't deserve to have better rights and freedoms. Don't tell me they don't get democracy. Electing a leader of a hunting party is a democratic principle that goes back to neanderthals I suspect, so why shouldn't Iraq have an elected leader. The problem is the people there don't know how to protect it, and they don't know how to allow tolerance. Tolerance is the key to an democracy. If you have no tolerance in a democracy, then you elect dictators. Look no further than Hitler being elected, and then changing the rules to suit his own nefarious purposes while he made Jews the scape goat.

No, Iraq can work as a democracy if the people there resist the desire to settle scores, the police force is professional and treats people with respect and equality, and if the military there resists the temptation to run the country in a military fashion, and control everything. Democracy and tolerance have to come to the Middle East in some other nation besides Israel. If it wont, Arab countries will continue to oppress their minorities, corrupt their own socieities, and use religion and oil money to keep people poor and uneducated. The Americans may have been clumsy in Iraq, but their goals cant be always seen through an idea that they are always after their own motives. The fact is, American interests are those of most nations, in that they want a stable world economy, they don't want threats from terrorists and they want a world where things are predictable. Capitalism works better with trade, not slavery....

and I must say how can someone who had no honor in life suddenly die with it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Eki, you really think NOW that they have gone there they can just up and leave? The carnage would be worse and carry on even longer. No, once they made up their minds to go in, the debate isn't whether they shouldn't have been there ( I have said they didn't have it all figured out) but how much do they have to do to put things right. The reason the ethnic/religous killings has gone on is because there isn't enough Americans to deal with it. Lets face the reality Eki, you would bitch if left 4 seconds after Saddam was kicked out of town. You have your agenda, and it clouds any argument I give you.

They lived in gunpoint with Saddam alright, and you were ok with that, but now you whine that the Americans might be too tough on them? Strange logic indeed, but it is what I have come to expect from you.

---

You still think they should be forced to accept democracy when it seems obvious democracy won't work unless Iraq is divided into three different parts?