The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Mixed reports in the media on the way Saddam is spilling his guts.
At the time of capture he was, apparently, singing like a canary, to the extent that the troops just wanted rid of him.
Then early reports on his questioning gave mixed signals. It appeared he was forthcoming on some issues, but uncooperative on WMDs.
Today I've seen 2 lines adopted by the media:
1. Saddam isn't helping, but the coalition have found information stored in a briefcase he had at time of capture, and are now picking up more members of the regime.
2. He's co-operating on some issues, and saying nothing on others.
The topics aren't specified, but it seems fair to conclude that if this version is true, he's given the info to catch regime members, but still nothing on WMDs.
I don't want to get carried away with assumptions and hypotheses, but where people who believe Iraq has WMDs would insist Saddam's silence was 'uncooperative', those of us who are open to the possibility that there are no WMDs would see this as Saddam spilling all, and the coalition simply refusing honest answers when it's not what they want to hear.
And after all, since his (shotless) capture, Saddam seems to have adopted a compliant approach all round.
You could argue that Saddam is co-operating to the extent of revealing all he can, without disclosing info on WMDs, since he has nothing to lose from capture of regime members, but if no WMDs are found by the time of his trial, he'll be in a more favourable light.
I'd reject that argument for 2 reasons:
1. If other regime members are captured and Iraq does have WMDs, there's a very big risk that they would confirm the WMDs' existence anyway.
2. If Saddam is tried in a court which can impose a death penalty, he's almost certainly dead whether WMDs are found or not.
So, from the evidence I've seen, I have to draw this conclusion:
Saddam has been all-round compliant, including in questioning, and had no WMDs.
When he tells the coalition this, since admitting there are no WMDs is not an option for them, they claim Saddam is 'uncooperative'.
At the time of capture he was, apparently, singing like a canary, to the extent that the troops just wanted rid of him.
Then early reports on his questioning gave mixed signals. It appeared he was forthcoming on some issues, but uncooperative on WMDs.
Today I've seen 2 lines adopted by the media:
1. Saddam isn't helping, but the coalition have found information stored in a briefcase he had at time of capture, and are now picking up more members of the regime.
2. He's co-operating on some issues, and saying nothing on others.
The topics aren't specified, but it seems fair to conclude that if this version is true, he's given the info to catch regime members, but still nothing on WMDs.
I don't want to get carried away with assumptions and hypotheses, but where people who believe Iraq has WMDs would insist Saddam's silence was 'uncooperative', those of us who are open to the possibility that there are no WMDs would see this as Saddam spilling all, and the coalition simply refusing honest answers when it's not what they want to hear.
And after all, since his (shotless) capture, Saddam seems to have adopted a compliant approach all round.
You could argue that Saddam is co-operating to the extent of revealing all he can, without disclosing info on WMDs, since he has nothing to lose from capture of regime members, but if no WMDs are found by the time of his trial, he'll be in a more favourable light.
I'd reject that argument for 2 reasons:
1. If other regime members are captured and Iraq does have WMDs, there's a very big risk that they would confirm the WMDs' existence anyway.
2. If Saddam is tried in a court which can impose a death penalty, he's almost certainly dead whether WMDs are found or not.
So, from the evidence I've seen, I have to draw this conclusion:
Saddam has been all-round compliant, including in questioning, and had no WMDs.
When he tells the coalition this, since admitting there are no WMDs is not an option for them, they claim Saddam is 'uncooperative'.
That's the way I saw it.
He's saying that there's no WMD's so they're calling that unco-operative, but it's not what they want to hear from him.
If he had any at all then he'd have used them by now.
He's saying that there's no WMD's so they're calling that unco-operative, but it's not what they want to hear from him.
If he had any at all then he'd have used them by now.
I think they are probably most upset that he was captured alive. I predict he will be suicided in the near future. Bush has another election to rig.
I like this:
http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/121403.asp
This whole thing makes me sick. How can these criminals get away with so many bare-faced lies. I saw Bush on telly this morning struggling to string another sentence together... the world is f*&ked.
http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/121403.asp
This whole thing makes me sick. How can these criminals get away with so many bare-faced lies. I saw Bush on telly this morning struggling to string another sentence together... the world is f*&ked.
Darwock wrote:
> Jack Straw and Dubya were very quick to say "It doesn't matter
> what he says, he lied to us for 10 years". In other words, they
> are already discrediting anything he might say about not having WMDs.
Of course, but if they admit he might not have WMDs then they also admit to having lied when they claimed that they knew he definitely did have to justify the war.
> Jack Straw and Dubya were very quick to say "It doesn't matter
> what he says, he lied to us for 10 years". In other words, they
> are already discrediting anything he might say about not having WMDs.
Of course, but if they admit he might not have WMDs then they also admit to having lied when they claimed that they knew he definitely did have to justify the war.
Don't believe anything they tell you on the news, it's all contradictory and purely for the sake of influencing public opinion.
Jack Straw and Dubya were very quick to say "It doesn't matter what he says, he lied to us for 10 years". In other words, they are already discrediting anything he might say about not having WMDs.
Jack Straw and Dubya were very quick to say "It doesn't matter what he says, he lied to us for 10 years". In other words, they are already discrediting anything he might say about not having WMDs.
Mixed reports in the media on the way Saddam is spilling his guts.
At the time of capture he was, apparently, singing like a canary, to the extent that the troops just wanted rid of him.
Then early reports on his questioning gave mixed signals. It appeared he was forthcoming on some issues, but uncooperative on WMDs.
Today I've seen 2 lines adopted by the media:
1. Saddam isn't helping, but the coalition have found information stored in a briefcase he had at time of capture, and are now picking up more members of the regime.
2. He's co-operating on some issues, and saying nothing on others.
The topics aren't specified, but it seems fair to conclude that if this version is true, he's given the info to catch regime members, but still nothing on WMDs.
I don't want to get carried away with assumptions and hypotheses, but where people who believe Iraq has WMDs would insist Saddam's silence was 'uncooperative', those of us who are open to the possibility that there are no WMDs would see this as Saddam spilling all, and the coalition simply refusing honest answers when it's not what they want to hear.
And after all, since his (shotless) capture, Saddam seems to have adopted a compliant approach all round.
You could argue that Saddam is co-operating to the extent of revealing all he can, without disclosing info on WMDs, since he has nothing to lose from capture of regime members, but if no WMDs are found by the time of his trial, he'll be in a more favourable light.
I'd reject that argument for 2 reasons:
1. If other regime members are captured and Iraq does have WMDs, there's a very big risk that they would confirm the WMDs' existence anyway.
2. If Saddam is tried in a court which can impose a death penalty, he's almost certainly dead whether WMDs are found or not.
So, from the evidence I've seen, I have to draw this conclusion:
Saddam has been all-round compliant, including in questioning, and had no WMDs.
When he tells the coalition this, since admitting there are no WMDs is not an option for them, they claim Saddam is 'uncooperative'.
At the time of capture he was, apparently, singing like a canary, to the extent that the troops just wanted rid of him.
Then early reports on his questioning gave mixed signals. It appeared he was forthcoming on some issues, but uncooperative on WMDs.
Today I've seen 2 lines adopted by the media:
1. Saddam isn't helping, but the coalition have found information stored in a briefcase he had at time of capture, and are now picking up more members of the regime.
2. He's co-operating on some issues, and saying nothing on others.
The topics aren't specified, but it seems fair to conclude that if this version is true, he's given the info to catch regime members, but still nothing on WMDs.
I don't want to get carried away with assumptions and hypotheses, but where people who believe Iraq has WMDs would insist Saddam's silence was 'uncooperative', those of us who are open to the possibility that there are no WMDs would see this as Saddam spilling all, and the coalition simply refusing honest answers when it's not what they want to hear.
And after all, since his (shotless) capture, Saddam seems to have adopted a compliant approach all round.
You could argue that Saddam is co-operating to the extent of revealing all he can, without disclosing info on WMDs, since he has nothing to lose from capture of regime members, but if no WMDs are found by the time of his trial, he'll be in a more favourable light.
I'd reject that argument for 2 reasons:
1. If other regime members are captured and Iraq does have WMDs, there's a very big risk that they would confirm the WMDs' existence anyway.
2. If Saddam is tried in a court which can impose a death penalty, he's almost certainly dead whether WMDs are found or not.
So, from the evidence I've seen, I have to draw this conclusion:
Saddam has been all-round compliant, including in questioning, and had no WMDs.
When he tells the coalition this, since admitting there are no WMDs is not an option for them, they claim Saddam is 'uncooperative'.