A Demand for Hussein's Release

[ECH1969]

A coalition of 300 Iraqi tribal leaders on Saturday demanded the release of Saddam Hussein so he could reclaim the presidency and also called for armed resistance against U.S.-led forces.

During Hussein's dictatorship, positions of power in the military and the ruling Baath Party were held overwhelmingly by Sunni Arabs, a minority that formed the backbone of the Iraqi insurgency after Hussein was toppled in 2003.

"If the demand is not carried out, we will lead a general, sweeping and popular uprising," said Sheik Wassfy al-Assy, brother of the chief of the Obeidi tribe, which hosted a meeting of the clan leaders on Monday in Ramal, a village 55 miles southwest of Kirkuk. "As for whether will be reinstated in his post as president after his release, that will be up to him."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/02/AR2006090201032.html

[Eric J in MN]

1. Joe Scarborough repeatedly ridiculed Janeane Garofalo...

..for saying the Iraq War would be a disaster.

But Scarborough is still on MSNBC 5 nights a week sharing his alleged wisdom.

Janeane Garofalo has never had a political show on TV.

[snappyturtle]

2. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Wonder how wonderboy Rove will handle this little dilemma?

[snappyturtle]

3. Not to be confused---I do not advocate our troops being

targets of this group......it just strikes me funny that after all the hoopla of capturing Hussein the story has turned into this situation.

[ckramer]

4. Since the Iraq war is illegal, overthrowing of Saddam is illegal too

According to the UN law.

So the call is not unreasonable.

[tocqueville]

5. these guys are to be taken seriously....

"The clan chieftains, who were mostly Sunni Arabs and included the head of the 1.5 million-member al-Obeidi tribe, said they planned to hold rallies in Sunni cities throughout the country to insist that Hussein be freed and that the charges against him and his co-defendants dropped."

what I get of the latest :

Sistani (the ultimate Shiite religious authority and moderating force) gives up
Sadr rules the streets
the Kurds are practically declaring independence
the Sunnis threaten with general upprising

Iraq is slowly imploding, a death sentence towards Saddam could trigger the final explosion

there might be an october surprise : the US are thrown out of Iraq by force....

of course not the surprise GW had in mind

[MrPrax]

10. Right Said...

In fact you said it in another thread which I will, with your indulgence, quote here:

If I get the WH right, there is no civil war....

and the transfer of military power to the Iraqis is only a procedurial question

mission accomplished!

let's go home...

or am I missing something ? Link

Nope...you didn't miss anything.

If they want to spin a US victory and 'mission accomplished', the GOP can spin it just as well with the troops home safe.

Saddam was our ally -- then he wasn't -- then he is...just spin it...it's not like US taxpayer is going to notice...one victory over 'evil' is just as good another one :eyes:

[tkmorris]

12. I don't know about that

I really don't see how they could spin a return of Saddam as anything other than an absolute defeat. They demonized him far too much. Even the Great Unwashed out there in middle America have limits to their cognitive dissonance, and I think that one would break them.

On the other hand, it would be just AMAZING fun to watch them try that spin.

[MrPrax]

15. It would be 'balls-alicious'...

to spin a 'Saddam is our ally' again...Mind you, nobody seems all that worked up over not even LOOKING for Osama Bin Laden anymore...so anything is possible.

[NOLADEM]

6. Milk Just Shot Through My Nose

What a fucking nightmare.

Jebus.

The Chimp is in a pickle too, since this is sort of a democratic demand. HEHEHEHE

What a disaster.

Sad thing is that it would possibly re-establish more stability than we are able to create for the poor people of Iraq.

What would really be the difference, I ask? Seriously. We have adopted Hussein's tactics of torture, murder and bombing of non-compliant civilian populations, we have sold out the Kurds, and have ruined their oil fields and infrastructure. What would be worse under a re-installed Hussein?

I am not advocating releasing him. He belongs in the Hague with those that put him there (CIA and Poppy Bush's cabal). Just saying that things might actually be better under Hussein than the US occupation, and that is fucking SAD.

[MrPrax]

7. If it would work...

then it would be a smart move. The US has done far more damage than Saddam and Iraqis had far more freedom under his rule.

Americans should show some humility and admit they are running on empty -- but that's not in their national character, just war.

[tocqueville]

8. the only "honorable" strategy is to CUT AND WALK

before cutting and running is the only option before Dien Bien Phu.

step out silently, pretend nothing is happening, make deals with all parts not to attack US troops if they trickle out. Don't send them right away home but redeploy to foreign bases as much as possible even with a high turnover...

at least it won't look like a retreat

Then let Iran pacify the region. They will do it anyway, better not to be there.

[greccogirl]

9. Well then, I guess we should just turn him over

since they asked nicely.

[wellst0nev0ter]

11. So Should We Side With The Obvious Winners - The Shiites

during the civil war, or should we protect the Sunnis from a slaughter, who will still kill us in a general uprising?


Nice corner the warmongers backed us into :eyes:

[tkmorris]

14. Not so sure the winner is obvious

The Shia have greater numbers to be sure, but the Sunni are better equipped I fear. In addition, the Kurds have design of their own.

I suspect the Sunni would draw themselves into their strongholds and any attempts by the Shiites to oust them meet heavy resistance. My guess would be that the Shiites would try to ignore the Sunni at this point, but would face the same sort of insurgency that exists now, and it would eventually erupt into full scale civil war.

The Sunni do not wish to allow the Shia to control a united nation, for obvious reasons, but neither can they simply agree to splitting the nation up because that would leave the Shia controlling the oil, due to them dominating in the southern Iraq area.

It's a mess.

Edited due to idiocy on my part.

[Rex]

13. Why can't we take some of the billions we waste daily and

spend it one someone who understands the culture in the ME? I mean, why the fuck do we have to be led around by the nosehairs by scumbags like Rove and Cheney? They understand NOTHING about how nations work. I've never seen such ignorant men in power. Pay attention lurking motards - when you overthrow a dictatorship, guess who becomes the new dictator? Oh and you can't go back to the 'way things were'. Sorry, won't work.

Now whatyagonna do? How you gonna fix Iraq, you fucking clueless bunnies? I know and so do most DUrs. Fucking stupid, worthless people run America. Not worth a warm pitcher of spit.

[Igel]

16. Nice, clear

tribal thinking.

We had power, and it's ours; to take it away from us is dishonor. Dishonor bad; honor good.

Some tribal thinking is sect based, other tribal thinking is strictly tribe based.

The one tribe missing is the one that most predicters of guerrilla war based their logic on: Iraqi. Iraqis use the word, but it means different things in different mouths.

Saddam's sucking up to tribes and Salafists certainly paid off.

[lumpy]

17. Sorta' like what happens here in the US.

Got it.

[Igel]

18. Yes.

It's what happens when groups privilege members of their groups over others, and assume that some political or economic power is theirs by right, by membership in a group.

Liberals are dissed as irrational, impractical, over-sentimental appeasers. Conservatives are dissed as neandertal knuckle-draggers. Lines are clearly drawn.

The poor are dissed as losers, lazy, stupid. The rich are dissed as greedy, corrupt, immoral. Boundaries are unmistakably marked.

Same goes for race- and ethnic-thinking.

Thinking outside the lines strictly disapproved of, the crossing of boundaries is punished in the usual tribal manner: dishonor and expulsion.

It's an improvement that the groups in the West are usually those that one can join and leave with little hardship as a consequence, and are often self-assigned; 'expulsion' is just that, expulsion, with little additional penalty. Groups don't feel that it's appropriate to kill members of the other group, by and large. It's much worse when you have group membership by birth, or joining a group is irreversible, or when the code of honor licenses violence.