The capture of Saddam Hussein was an eventuality that has finally come to pass. The amount of diligence that the US occupation forces has expended on this squirrel hunt has been enormous, in dollar terms it could be termed the most expensive man-hunt in history. And so the tyrant is captured. What happens next will be the typical rattling of sabers, the congratulatory backslapping, and the insistence that might is after all right. The pure bourgeoisie will revel in their state of social ferment and toast each other with Johnny Walker Blue.
But what of Iraq and her people? What of Iraq?

Irregardless of the Pentagons propaganda mills that spill fear into the streets of our nation and the world, and the oil barons and corporate slave traders incessant greed, Saddam Hussein was and is still, in the end, an opportunist. Groomed by the military industrial colonialist elite, and placed in power by the CIA, funded lavishly at American taxpayer expense to buy weapons and centrifuges and spores, Hussein as an opportunist was also not a fundamentalist. He was much more a capitalist, although a wayward sort, certainly in the biting of the CIA's hand that fed and nurtured him. As such, he exercised a tyranny that was Western, at times perhaps the most Western of the Arab tyrannies. He held no truck with Islamic fanatics, and imprisoned and attacked them as much as his gilded neighbors to the South in Kuwait. Now that he is finally gone, who will take his place...will it be a colonialist government of yes-men and Bechtel clones? That's what the psychopath bush wants undoubtedly. His capture, though, has created a power vacuum for those who might genuinely want a free and independent, a culturally whole, Iraq and who have been fighting for that against colonialist forces. This is not to say that those people wanted a return of Saddam, but while he was on the run and separated from colonial inquisition and punishment, he must have represented something untouched by the overwhelming military superiority of the invaders of Iraq and as such a figurehead of refusal to bow down to that colonial capitalist hegemony.

Now that he has been captured a power vacuum has formed. Forces of Islamic fundamentalism, such as those represented by bin Laden, the Taliban, and other truly dangerous entities are looking at a situation that is ripe for exploitation. How much of Iraq does the occupation forces control? Forty, maybe fifty percent of the country. They cannot at this point adequately control the border and the mass desertions of nearly half of the Iraqi army does not bode well for the colonialist forces to fill the vacuum. I am afraid that bin Laden's fundamentalists will now take up whatever resistance psychology that Saddam may have engendered in those Iraqis who supported a free Iraq untainted by American corruption and values.

Past the backslapping and the gleeful republicrats yes-sirs, the specter of a dangerous Iraq just became a lot more destabilized, and for American soldiers and destiny perhaps much more deadly. The confrontation of the psychopathic bush's Christian fundamentalism and bin Laden's Islamic fundamentalism will perhaps play out among the GI graffitied ancient ruins of Ur and Babylon, pushing us all closer to the bizarre conflagration that bush needs to justify his own twisted and cracked sense of individuality.

How many times over the last 6 months have you typed the words in a sneering fashion, "So where IS Saddam?"

Now you act like it's worse than no big deal, it's a destabiling occurrence?

Make up your mind. You either condemn the coalition for not finding him, or you condemn them for finding him.

You can't do both. Not without looking like a total hypocrite, a political opportunist.

By the way, "irregardless" is not a word.

I don't reply to morons.

BTW irregardless is an adverb.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irregardless

"Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so."

So much for your mastery of the English language.

"I don't reply to morons."

That's handy, isn't it? You can make the most ridiculous, specious claims and never have to answer for them.

That's the coward's way out, Skippy.

Yet it's perfectly in keeping with your character.

BLAH BLAH BLAH

"By the way, "irregardless" is not a word."

God, that "word" drives me nuts.

Thanks for pointing out how wrong it is.