PDA

View Full Version : Saddam Captured


Boba Rhett
12-14-2003, 09:25 AM
You read that right! :eek: You read it here first, folks!

Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is believed to have been captured in a raid near his hometown of Tikrit, U.S. military officials say.

CNN News Story (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/14/sprj.irq.main/index.html)

Albawaba News Story (http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=265524&lang=e&dir=news)

Alegis
12-14-2003, 09:46 AM
Holy *********************** !!!! I definitely hope it's him.. Thanks for the news Rhett!!

BawBag™
12-14-2003, 09:50 AM
Funny this got posted - I was just watching Premiership Football when it flashed up as breaking news.
Seems that America have D.N.A on file so as to prove it's not one of many look-a-likes he has.

IG-64
12-14-2003, 10:04 AM
ya, heard about that about half an hour ago, doesn't suprise me, one man can't hide forever even if he does have an infinate amount of clones :clone: :clone: :clone:

the fun part is what their gonna do to 'em :p

Reclaimer
12-14-2003, 10:23 AM
WOOHOOO!!!! HE"S CAPTURED!!!!

Boba Rhett
12-14-2003, 10:34 AM
"Ladies and gentlemen, we got em'"

Awsome quote just now at the coalition authority news conference.

Boba Rhett
12-14-2003, 10:49 AM
I'll post a better picture when I get one.

IG-64
12-14-2003, 10:51 AM
I just saw the video of his checkup :xp: ha ha, loser
well, at least he gave in quietly

Pie™
12-14-2003, 10:53 AM
i hope this mean that america is gonna withdraw forces from iraq soon... or we might need to capture bush :D

Boba Rhett
12-14-2003, 11:10 AM
Here's a better picture.

obi
12-14-2003, 11:12 AM
*yawns and stretches*

I just woke up and saw it on the news, and was about to post it. Rhett beat me to it though. Again. >_>


The US is far from being done over there, and just because the leader is captured, doesn't mean the attacks and whatnot will stop.

My prayers and best wishes are still with those troops.

IG-64
12-14-2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by Boba Rhett
Here's a better picture. http://www.lucasforums.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=1405366

the one on the right is him shaved after the one on the left, not a historical picture, in case you didn't know

Boba Rhett
12-14-2003, 11:24 AM
An even bigger one.

Mex
12-14-2003, 11:47 AM
Darnit I was going to post this but it only came on the news like 10 minutes ago.

:| Oh well, yay!

Ragnos
12-14-2003, 12:21 PM
Grrrreat!!!! :D :D :D


This gave inspiration to write 4 school projects due tomorrow AND study to the HUGE math test also tomorow :( wish me luck...

ZBomber
12-14-2003, 01:05 PM
I know. And they walked him in front of all the Irqui prisoners. ^_^

Sad thing is, my sister's husband still has to go back to Iraq. :(


EDIT - Go here, and look at the bottom picture:

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20031214055309990001

"Saddam was found dirty and unshaven"

HAHA! DIRTY! :p

Alegis
12-14-2003, 01:17 PM
Can't view that page orc since it's aol-only

They're going to change the flag back :\ Everybody's happy, yay!

ZBomber
12-14-2003, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Alegis Gensan
Can't view that page orc since it's aol-only

They're going to change the flag back :\ Everybody's happy, yay!

http://cdn.news.aol.com/aolnews_photos/07/05/20031214083909990001

ExcelsioN
12-14-2003, 01:21 PM
Haha! Sucker.:D

So have any of your opinions on the war changed now?
That sentence "Ladies and gentlemen. We got 'em." is pretty cool.

Apparently, just after that all the Iraqi's started cheering.

ZBomber
12-14-2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Excelsion
Haha! Sucker.:D

So have any of your opinions on the war changed now?
That sentence "Ladies and gentlemen. We got 'em." is pretty cool.

Apparently, just after that all the Iraqi's started cheering.

There are still gonna be the rebels and the suicide bombers. :( Thats why I worry for my brother-in-law.... :(

Tesla
12-14-2003, 01:53 PM
Don't no why your all going "Yay the suxor is r's", the attacks will still continue on US troops, and British troops...though we haven't had many attacks on us...at least thats my knowledge....anyway...I hope they resolve everything in Iraq as quick and effeicently as possible. :)

In other news, i got my KotOR working ! :D

DarkLord60
12-14-2003, 02:42 PM
OWNED http://www.foxnews.com/images/110521/26_43_121403_hussein7.jpg

MaulerZ
12-14-2003, 03:08 PM
all your base are belong to us :p

*runs out of thread before he is attacked*

SpecialForces
12-14-2003, 03:15 PM
I think we should interogate him, and if he doesnt talk, we should tie him up for the people of Iraq to beat.
doesnt have to be in that order.....
mwahahahahaha....

Jo
12-14-2003, 03:32 PM
i just hope he gets what he deserves. and no, attacks definately wont siece(sp)

Neverhoodian
12-14-2003, 03:48 PM
It's welcome news that a madman such as Saddam Hussein is captured. Justice has finally come for the friends and families of Iraqi victims.

Still, though, the U.S. is far from finished over in Iraq. I fully expect more violence and bloodshed before this is over.

ZBomber
12-14-2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by SpecialForces
I think we should interogate him, and if he doesnt talk, we should tie him up for the people of Iraq to beat.
doesnt have to be in that order.....
mwahahahahaha....

I like the way your mind works. ^_^

shukrallah
12-14-2003, 03:55 PM
Yeah, i wonder what they will do to him now... its obvious they will interogate him. But why would he talk? He has nothing to lose. Hes lost a whole country, he has nothing except the clothes on his back.

There are still gonna be the rebels and the suicide bombers. Thats why I worry for my brother-in-law....

Yeah, i know a guy who will be going soon too. And your right, this morning there was a possible car bombing somewhere in iraq.. but there not sure. People are shooting guns, and can hear explosions and stuff...

XERXES
12-14-2003, 08:03 PM
strange, I thought hed be smoking cuban cigars in brazil by now...

excellent though.

Jared
12-14-2003, 08:10 PM
wow, he's f*cked now.


imagine the charges that are gonna be against him in court.


thousands of counts of murder....war crimes........damn...wouldnt want to be that guy, thats for sure.

Taos
12-14-2003, 08:20 PM
Talk about great news, we got one of them! Now it's time to track down that weasel Bin Laden.

Rad Blackrose
12-14-2003, 08:25 PM
Linked due to profanity (just one F word... Who is it going to hurt?)

http://www.myboot.com/is/craig/images/catstevens.jpg

Just as a bit of humor... ;)

The_One
12-14-2003, 08:26 PM
Hang on. Where are the weapons? I thought that's why we went to war? Not to capture some bearded man. Now we have Saddam - but there are still hundreds of factions fighting the coalition in Iraq (plenty of them not loyal to Saddam) who want a piece of the pie, and hate the West just as much as he does. And the Saddam loyalists will probably just fight harder now.

The fact of the matter is we went to war on the basis of a lie - now we've ****ed up a country and a region, arguably, even more than it was before - and got a bunch more people to hate us. And now we have captured a bearded man - a man once supported by the US government, no less.

Result.

kmd
12-14-2003, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by The_One
Hang on. Where are the weapons? I thought that's why we went to war? Not to capture some bearded man. Now we have Saddam - but there are still hundreds of factions fighting the coalition in Iraq (plenty of them not loyal to Saddam) who want a piece of the pie, and hate the West just as much as he does. And the Saddam loyalists will probably just fight harder now.

The fact of the matter is we went to war on the basis of a lie - now we've ****ed up a country and a region, arguably, even more than it was before - and got a bunch more people to hate us. And now we have captured a bearded man - a man once supported by the US government, no less.

Result. wow, a tip for you, turn your head around so it faces front, maybe then you will see strait

Pie™
12-14-2003, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by The_One
Hang on. Where are the weapons? I thought that's why we went to war? Not to capture some bearded man. Now we have Saddam - but there are still hundreds of factions fighting the coalition in Iraq (plenty of them not loyal to Saddam) who want a piece of the pie, and hate the West just as much as he does. And the Saddam loyalists will probably just fight harder now.

The fact of the matter is we went to war on the basis of a lie - now we've ****ed up a country and a region, arguably, even more than it was before - and got a bunch more people to hate us. And now we have captured a bearded man - a man once supported by the US government, no less.

Result. true... i agree on all points :) good to see that at least someun sees through it ;) (no, i'm NOT beeing sarcastic)

Sam Fisher
12-14-2003, 09:57 PM
Well, at least that stage in this war is over.

El Sitherino
12-14-2003, 10:16 PM
Now it's Bush's turn for capture!

Joetheeskimo
12-14-2003, 10:19 PM
Yeah, my pastor mentioned that this morning. Yay! :)

El Sitherino
12-14-2003, 10:23 PM
I'm up for an old fashion foot hanging. :)
You know tie him at the feet and just let him hang for about 3 days then soak his wounds in salt water.

Jedi Luke
12-14-2003, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by The_One
Hang on. Where are the weapons? I thought that's why we went to war? Not to capture some bearded man. Now we have Saddam - but there are still hundreds of factions fighting the coalition in Iraq (plenty of them not loyal to Saddam) who want a piece of the pie, and hate the West just as much as he does. And the Saddam loyalists will probably just fight harder now.

The fact of the matter is we went to war on the basis of a lie - now we've ****ed up a country and a region, arguably, even more than it was before - and got a bunch more people to hate us. And now we have captured a bearded man - a man once supported by the US government, no less.

Result.

I'm with you on this one Rich. The UN did not find that Saddam was possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction. What gave Bush the right to attack? Like you said Rich, The loyalists will fight harder now and we can also expect further attacks in the future.

America went in to stop Saddam, for what main concern? Oil. America went in to stop this tyrant. Does this mean America will go into stop Mugabe in Zimbabwe? No. It is all about the concern for oil. The financial end justifies all means.

This does not mean I am in favour of Saddam's dictatorship. I'm glad to see him out of power but what gives America the right to invade Iraq?

Jared
12-14-2003, 10:48 PM
oh man............here it comes....

TiE23
12-14-2003, 10:52 PM
http://cdn.news.aol.com/aolnews_photos/07/05/20031214083909990001 One down..
http://www.texasdude.com/9-11-01/yo-bin-laden-2.jpg one to go...

TiE

Joetheeskimo
12-14-2003, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
I'm up for an old fashion foot hanging. :)
You know tie him at the feet and just let him hang for about 3 days then soak his wounds in salt water.

*Starts putting up picketing signs*

CRUELTY! CRUELTY!

No wonder the U.S never uses that anymore! *Shudders* :eek:

TiE23
12-14-2003, 11:09 PM
Three words: Crash Test Dummie!!!
Whooohooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TiE

shukrallah
12-14-2003, 11:57 PM
Hang on. Where are the weapons? I thought that's why we went to war? Not to capture some bearded man. Now we have Saddam - but there are still hundreds of factions fighting the coalition in Iraq (plenty of them not loyal to Saddam) who want a piece of the pie, and hate the West just as much as he does. And the Saddam loyalists will probably just fight harder now.

The fact of the matter is we went to war on the basis of a lie - now we've ****ed up a country and a region, arguably, even more than it was before - and got a bunch more people to hate us. And now we have captured a bearded man - a man once supported by the US government, no less.

Result.

Hey, what if he did something to them? I mean, he had like 3 months before the war started to dispose of them. Remember, Bush asked him to give him that report that proved that there were no WMD, it was due in about 15 days... not to mention lots of talk about war before that. Anyways, im not saying he had the weapons, but he might have. Saddam could just admit he had them. People have always hated the west, remember 9-11? Even if the WMD were made up, I think someone like Suddam should have been removed. He killed his own people, and tortured people if they just said something about him he didnt like. At least you guys can type stuff against Bush. They couldnt say anything about Suddam. The Iraqis are overenjoyed over there! If bush lied, it will come out in the end. He will need to explain his real reasons for invading Iraq sooner or later. What are you "mad" about? So what if Bush lied.. there are too many possibilties and none of really know the answeres...

Jedi Luke
12-15-2003, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
Even if the WMD were made up, I think someone like Suddam should have been removed. He killed his own people, and tortured people if they just said something about him he didnt like.

Then why don't America go into Zimbabwe and remove Mugabe? He's tyranny is just as bad, if not worse in terms of violence to Zimbabweans as Saddam's was to Iraq.

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
The Iraqis are overenjoyed over there! If bush lied, it will come out in the end. He will need to explain his real reasons for invading Iraq sooner or later. What are you "mad" about? So what if Bush lied.. there are too many possibilties and none of really know the answeres...

Iraqis are overjoyed. Hold on, we are watching the news from the perspective of media from WESTERN countries. Of course the media aren't gonna be showing loyalists to Saddam demonstrating that they are prepared to die fighting against America because this just sparks more worry and Bush wants the perspective that what he did was right.

But as you said lukeskywalker, there are too many unanswered questions.

I'm not saying that he should've been left in power. I'm saying that it wasn't America's (Bush's) place to invade on terms of possessing WMD which weren't proven. As I said earlier, the main concern has to be the oil.

shukrallah
12-15-2003, 01:01 AM
Of course the media aren't gonna be showing loyalists to Saddam demonstrating that they are prepared to die fighting against America because this just sparks more worry

Good point. Its obvious the loyalists are not happy :)

As I said earlier, the main concern has to be the oil.

I dont like to think that we (bush/america) would go that low... they could have made a deal or something. Its possible that we did invade because of the oil, but if thats the real reason then I feel it could have been delt with better.

MaulerZ
12-15-2003, 01:13 AM
George: "Im gonna give you such a noogie Osama is gonna feel it"
http://www.geocities.com/maulerz1138/GBnoogie.txt

kmd
12-15-2003, 01:50 AM
your pretty naive, irag holds like 1/8th of the world oil, its not for the oil! and they can hide weapons of mass destruction any were they want, they are in the middle of the fricken desert, yeah i believe they did have them, but...when we came, got rid of them, burried them in the desert, we would never be able to find them. we helped alot of people by taking sadam out of power, an entire country! They love us for it too, now they dont have to live under his rule, for the most part the people there thank us greatly; i know this becuase i have heard people, non-military go ocver there to bagdad and see this.

All this talk abouit stringing up our own President is stupid, he has done way more than clinton ever could have done given the same situation, and is for some reason, reciving alot of bad feed back, he's not the one sleeping around with ugly fat woman

Jedi Luke
12-15-2003, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by kmd
your pretty naive, irag holds like 1/8th of the world oil, its not for the oil!

Then you tell me why they marched into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. If you say that it was because of his tyranny then I will reply by saying then why don't America remove Mugabe from Zimbabwe. The violence he's causing is just as bad as Saddam.

The WMD are of the concern of the UN. THE UN!!. For what right does Bush have to invade Iraq when no discoveries of WMD have been proven.

Also I don't exactly think America is without WMD.

Originally posted by kmd
they can hide weapons of mass destruction any were they want, they are in the middle of the fricken desert, yeah i believe they did have them, but...when we came, got rid of them, burried them in the desert,

It's not that easy to hide WMD. Those weapons are HUGE!!! Do you think America would not have searched in the desert? Of course they would've for tracks of where, that is 'IF' WMD were buried. You think about it. How're you going to hide HUGE wmd. It's not physically easy to hide these and even so, troops and forensic experts would've searched.

Originally posted by kmd
we helped alot of people by taking sadam out of power, an entire country! They love us for it too, now they dont have to live under his rule, for the most part the people there thank us greatly; i know this becuase i have heard people, non-military go ocver there to bagdad and see this.
[B]

Do you think the American Media are gonna illustrate to Americans all the loyal Iraqi to Saddam threatening America that they are ready to die just to kill some Americans? Of course not. Sure there are people happy but don't be stupid and think 'Every Iraqi is happy and loves us'.

Originally posted by kmd
[B]All this talk abouit stringing up our own President is stupid, he has done way more than clinton ever could have done given the same situation, and is for some reason, reciving alot of bad feed back, he's not the one sleeping around with ugly fat woman

Yes he has done some good (and I'm not talking about the way he's handling the current worldwide situation) things but the way he has gone about the whole terrorist thing is wrong. All he's done is attract more terrorist attacks, threats and loathing between the Western Counries and the middle east.

razorace
12-15-2003, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Luke
Then you tell me why they marched into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. If you say that it was because of his tyranny then I will reply by saying then why don't America remove Mugabe from Zimbabwe. The violence he's causing is just as bad as Saddam.

The reason why we don't just go in every problem area is because the US doesn't have the resources to take down every tyrant in the world. We're having enough problems getting enough manpower to handle Iraq and Afghanistan at once.

And there's more side benefits for Iraq vs. Zimbabwe. Yes, there's oil involved (which we could steal but have not) but there's also the whole Mideast issue in general. The Middle East is a problem, most of the various terrorist cells that have been plotting against the USA are from there. The hope is that forming a Islamic democracy in the Mid East will A) be a beacon of hope/reform for the area and B) take the front lines off the US borders (If the terrorists are using all their resources in a battle for Iraq, they can't afford to strike at the US mainland.)

The WMD are of the concern of the UN. THE UN!!. For what right does Bush have to invade Iraq when no discoveries of WMD have been proven.

There is no mention of WMDs in the UN Charter.

As for rights, people were suffering and dieing, what other reason do you need?

Yes, people died for the liberation of Iraq, however, if you do a quick calculation of the currently known number of mass graves, you'd see that Saddam actually killed more people per year (on average) than we lost in the whole war, on our side/their side/civs/etc.

ET Warrior
12-15-2003, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by lukeskywalker1
People have always hated the west, remember 9-11?

Remember when people always bring up 9-11 when talking about Saddam, when Iraq had nothing to do with that?

I find it interesting.:rolleyes:

XERXES
12-15-2003, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by The_One
Hang on. Where are the weapons? I thought that's why we went to war? Not to capture some bearded man. Now we have Saddam - but there are still hundreds of factions fighting the coalition in Iraq (plenty of them not loyal to Saddam) who want a piece of the pie, and hate the West just as much as he does. And the Saddam loyalists will probably just fight harder now.

The fact of the matter is we went to war on the basis of a lie - now we've ****ed up a country and a region, arguably, even more than it was before - and got a bunch more people to hate us. And now we have captured a bearded man - a man once supported by the US government, no less.

Result. so...your saying that we should have just left him alone...let him build up his power and armies...hmm, sounds like a retarted idea to me.:rolleyes:

I think the only people that hate "us" (with us being all those in support of the war) more than before are the ignorant hippies who just wana sit on their lazy arses and talk about peace and love and retarted crap like that.

Jedi Luke
12-15-2003, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by razorace
The reason why we don't just go in every problem area is because the US doesn't have the resources to take down every tyrant in the world. We're having enough problems getting enough manpower to handle Iraq and Afghanistan at once.

And there's more side benefits for Iraq vs. Zimbabwe. Yes, there's oil involved (which we could steal but have not) but there's also the whole Mideast issue in general. The Middle East is a problem, most of the various terrorist cells that have been plotting against the USA are from there. The hope is that forming a Islamic democracy in the Mid East will A) be a beacon of hope/reform for the area and B) take the front lines off the US borders (If the terrorists are using all their resources in a battle for Iraq, they can't afford to strike at the US mainland.)



There is no mention of WMDs in the UN Charter.

As for rights, people were suffering and dieing, what other reason do you need?

Yes, people died for the liberation of Iraq, however, if you do a quick calculation of the currently known number of mass graves, you'd see that Saddam actually killed more people per year (on average) than we lost in the whole war, on our side/their side/civs/etc.

Thank you razorace. I'm glad someone else here supports the oil perspective and has their own concise opinion on the situation than other n00bs saying, 'You're naive'. You're the naive one kmd.

Lightsaberboy
12-15-2003, 04:48 AM
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39633000/jpg/_39633981_saddamcaptured203.jpg

hmmm. looks kinda like santa....but with a hangover...

STTCT
12-15-2003, 05:08 AM
Now why can't they just get Osama?

It just proves that you can run, but you can't hide!

I can't believe the news either, its just so surreal. If you had asked me a couple years ago if I ever thought we'd catch him I would have said no. I figured maybe he would get killed in attacks, but I never dreamed that they would find him living in some hole!

Boba Rhett
12-15-2003, 05:29 AM
Hey guys, if you'd like to continue that chain of discussion could you take it to the Senate? I'd like to keep this one for mainly just updates on this situation. Thanks :)

ZBomber
12-15-2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Boba Rhett
Hey guys, if you'd like to continue that chain of discussion could you take it to the Senate? I'd like to keep this one for mainly just updates on this situation. Thanks :)

Thank you Rhett. I hate debating. ^_^

http://www.texasdude.com/9-11-01/yo-bin-laden-2.jpg

:rofl:

kmd
12-15-2003, 01:35 PM
ok i will stop debating, but just one last thing, if we never went in and got sadam, he hates america!!!!!! even if he didnt have it now,w e would in a few months, maybe a few years, and we would bet he frist targets, it would have been dumb to sit back and let 9/11 happen all over again ps: wma are small, not HUGE like you think, but the desert is, burry them and bam, they disaper forever......

did you guys read this? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3708711/

scroll down and read what sadam says to the people while being interigated.....

El Sitherino
12-15-2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by STTCT
Now why can't they just get Osama?

It just proves that you can run, but you can't hide!

I can't believe the news either, its just so surreal. If you had asked me a couple years ago if I ever thought we'd catch him I would have said no. I figured maybe he would get killed in attacks, but I never dreamed that they would find him living in some hole! Technically he was living in the shack and hid in the hole when troops were to report to the area. :)

Plus, his surrender while ironic, was not cowardly (his hiding in the hole was though), he could barely even role over in the hole much less put up a fight while in it.

Now what I don't get is why people think that everyone against the war thinks Saddam should have stayed in power. I am against the war, but damn glad Saddam is out of power. Now we just need to set up some form of ruling over there before it turns into a "No mans land".
And oil was a big case in the attack, not the only one mind you, but definitely not just to remove Saddam.

If the wmd's were hidden in the desert I'm sure they would have found them with the troops that were scanning the place.

The_One
12-15-2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by XERXES
so...your saying that we should have just left him alone...let him build up his power and armies...hmm, sounds like a retarted idea to me.:rolleyes:

And how precisely would he go about doing that? The UN sanctions since the first Gulf War have stopped him getting the resources needed to obtain any kind of WMD. There is no way in hell he could have had WMD. All the lies you have been fed is propaganda. Also, we have these things called satellites so we can see stuff in other countries. You can't hide a WMD plant. This is how we know that Iran has WMD. Look it up on the internet - you can see pictures. The guy (Saddam) was powerless, I think that was shown by the thousands of people from his armies surrendering, and the (mis)Information Minister reporting complete and utter rubbish. Don't you think they'd have used their weapons if they'd had them? Considering the close attention, and relentless bombing done to Iraq over the last 10 years, anyone with an ounce of common sense will tell you there are no, and never were, Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Why was Iraq the target then?

Well, oil may well be a factor, but in my estimation there are several other factors too. The Middle East is such, and always has been, a hotbed of unstable regimes all competing for power. The West has never really had any solid presence there. It is my belief that the US and UK had the intention of setting up a pro-Western government in Iraq. This would provide them with a nice stepping stone to the rest of the Middle East. Unfortunately, they thought it would be as simple as marching in there and sticking a US flag on Iraqi soil. What they failed to realise was that there are plenty of other Middle Eastern countries and factions who hate Saddam as much as they do - probably more so in fact, as the US have helped Saddam on previous occaisons. When they invaded, the whole thing went caput, and now they are bogged down fighting other people who all want control of Iraq. It is not as simple as waltzing in there and giving them "American Democracy" - assuming these people even want democracy.

The "Westernisation" mirrors the foreign policy with regard to Israel too. The US gives Israel £2 billion of "aid" a year (obviously this pales in comparison to what they spend on weapons every year - there's hypocrasy for you) - funding a ruthless regime, in the hope of gaining some influence in the Middle East. That's also hypocrasy for you - Sharon is in many ways just as bad as Saddam, unyet they fund Sharon's regime.

A poll in America recently showed that a large percentage of the population believed Saddam's regime to have been responsible for the attacks on the WTC. I think that is a great example of the propaganda the US public has been fed. That and "Saddam has links with al-Quaeda" - err, right. That has to be "joke of the year". It seems that another reason why the US went into Iraq was to lash out at another target after the War on Terror didn't seem to be going anywhere. They failed to catch Osama, and they needed to lash out at someone else. They tried to justify this somewhat with fake links between al-Quaeda and Saddam's regime. Sensible people knew that the Iraqi regime was in fact secular, and Osama hated Saddam too - so any link between the two was ridiculous.

The irony of it all is that the region is now far more unstable than it was before the war - and there are now even more people who HATE the West, in particular America. Yes, Bush and Blair have ****ed it all up royally.

The biggest irony of them all is this:

The USA is trying to bring peace to the world. How are they doing that? With war. Yes, bring peace with war.

Classic.

Pie™
12-15-2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by The_One
And how precisely would he go about doing that? The UN sanctions since the first Gulf War have stopped him getting the resources needed to obtain any kind of WMD. There is no way in hell he could have had WMD. All the lies you have been fed is propaganda. Also, we have these things called satellites so we can see stuff in other countries. You can't hide a WMD plant. This is how we know that Iran has WMD. Look it up on the internet - you can see pictures. The guy (Saddam) was powerless, I think that was shown by the thousands of people from his armies surrendering, and the (mis)Information Minister reporting complete and utter rubbish. Don't you think they'd have used their weapons if they'd had them? Considering the close attention, and relentless bombing done to Iraq over the last 10 years, anyone with an ounce of common sense will tell you there are no, and never were, Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Why was Iraq the target then?

Well, oil may well be a factor, but in my estimation there are several other factors too. The Middle East is such, and always has been, a hotbed of unstable regimes all competing for power. The West has never really had any solid presence there. It is my belief that the US and UK had the intention of setting up a pro-Western government in Iraq. This would provide them with a nice stepping stone to the rest of the Middle East. Unfortunately, they thought it would be as simple as marching in there and sticking a US flag on Iraqi soil. What they failed to realise was that there are plenty of other Middle Eastern countries and factions who hate Saddam as much as they do - probably more so in fact, as the US have helped Saddam on previous occaisons. When they invaded, the whole thing went caput, and now they are bogged down fighting other people who all want control of Iraq. It is not as simple as waltzing in there and giving them "American Democracy" - assuming these people even want democracy.

The "Westernisation" mirrors the foreign policy with regard to Israel too. The US gives Israel £2 billion of "aid" a year (obviously this pales in comparison to what they spend on weapons every year - there's hypocrasy for you) - funding a ruthless regime, in the hope of gaining some influence in the Middle East. That's also hypocrasy for you - Sharon is in many ways just as bad as Saddam, unyet they fund Sharon's regime.

A poll in America recently showed that a large percentage of the population believed Saddam's regime to have been responsible for the attacks on the WTC. I think that is a great example of the propaganda the US public has been fed. That and "Saddam has links with al-Quaeda" - err, right. That has to be "joke of the year". It seems that another reason why the US went into Iraq was to lash out at another target after the War on Terror didn't seem to be going anywhere. They failed to catch Osama, and they needed to lash out at someone else. They tried to justify this somewhat with fake links between al-Quaeda and Saddam's regime. Sensible people knew that the Iraqi regime was in fact secular, and Osama hated Saddam too - so any link between the two was ridiculous.

The irony of it all is that the region is now far more unstable than it was before the war - and there are now even more people who HATE the West, in particular America. Yes, Bush and Blair have ****ed it all up royally.

The biggest irony of them all is this:

The USA is trying to bring peace to the world. How are they doing that? With war. Yes, bring peace with war.

Classic. - Nuff' said :)

toms
12-15-2003, 03:03 PM
its a good thing, as it hopefully at least allows a chance that a democratic leadership can be set up in iraq. This would always have been hard with the possible spectre of saddam hanging around in the background.

As for attacks, it will probably decrease them around tikrit, which is his tribal area. But most of the attacks are either by iraqi nationalists or by external agitators who have come into iraq hoping to exploit hte situation, so i can't see the attacks decreasing that much.

I understand why they did it, but im a little uncomfortable with the US showing the video clips when they did. I'm fairly sure that this is in breach of the geneva convention, although i suppose that the US will argue that they are no-longer at war, so he is an illegal combatant or some such rubbish. It just disturbs me to see the US coming up with so many technicalitys to ignore international law all the time... hardly sets a good impression and gets other states to follow international law.

Looks like he will be tried in iraq, so it is a forgone conclusion that he will be executed. SHame, i would have liked to get some answers out of him.

---
As for the war, it may have been right, but it was done for the wrong reasons and has lead to the right result for iraqis, wrong result for the rest of the world.

Saddam basically bluffed and lost. He figured that acting as if he had WMD would prevent anyone from attacking him, but eventually it just didn't work anymore.

Lathain Valtiel
12-15-2003, 03:49 PM
Without war, there can be no peace.

Rad Blackrose
12-15-2003, 06:03 PM
Peace can only be attained through the barrel of a smoking gun.

El Sitherino
12-15-2003, 06:16 PM
How is violence the way to bring peace?

Since Bush has brought religion into his whole forte(sp?) I'll do the same.
Don't all religions state somewhere in their books and doctrines that violence only brings more violence? If not then I must not read very well. :\

I live my life by just avoiding conflict or ignoring it and I have yet to find myself in a situation where violence is the only means to escape the confrontation. Perhaps a lot of you need to rethink your life lessons and how to attain peace, especially you who think violence brings peace.

razorace
12-15-2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by toms
I understand why they did it, but im a little uncomfortable with the US showing the video clips when they did. I'm fairly sure that this is in breach of the geneva convention, although i suppose that the US will argue that they are no-longer at war, so he is an illegal combatant or some such rubbish. It just disturbs me to see the US coming up with so many technicalitys to ignore international law all the time... hardly sets a good impression and gets other states to follow international law.

From what I've heard, the geneva convention rules for POWs has been radically applied to everything and everyone dispite the words/spirit of the convention.

The actual geneva convention rules for POWs was written to only apply to uniformed military personnel of an opposing power that respects the principles of civilized warfare. (The remains of the Iraqi army are not considered a opposing power since the US is now occupying Iraqi. Terrorists don't count either.)

Anyone else is handled by a different set of rules (to allow for the handling of spies/civilians/etc).

The_One
12-15-2003, 07:22 PM
Actually, the Geneva Convention should apply. However, because the US is the biggest power in the world and they can do whatever the hell they want, they invented a new category to justify holding prisoners in Guantamo Bay. They'll probably use their newly created category to justifying detaining others.

Gotta love it :p

razorace
12-15-2003, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by The_One
Actually, the Geneva Convention should apply. However, because the US is the biggest power in the world and they can do whatever the hell they want, they invented a new category to justify holding prisoners in Guantamo Bay. They'll probably use their newly created category to justifying detaining others.

Gotta love it :p

You have particular section/paragraph(s) that you're referencing or are you just going the "I'm right, you're wrong" route?

kmd
12-15-2003, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
How is violence the way to bring peace?

Since Bush has brought religion into his whole forte(sp?) I'll do the same.
Don't all religions state somewhere in their books and doctrines that violence only brings more violence? If not then I must not read very well. :\

I live my life by just avoiding conflict or ignoring it and I have yet to find myself in a situation where violence is the only means to escape the confrontation. Perhaps a lot of you need to rethink your life lessons and how to attain peace, especially you who think violence brings peace. ever heard the phrase, "Freedom isnt Free!" well, that basicly sums it up right there

El Sitherino
12-15-2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by kmd
ever heard the phrase, "Freedom isnt Free!" well, that basicly sums it up right there What does that have to do with peace? Freedom and peace are 2 different things.

kmd
12-15-2003, 09:16 PM
in order to have your freedom you must fight to keep it, or others will take it away, you wont have peace if your being bommbed by some country, or living under a tyrents rule, you must first take them out...then peace will come. it all ties in, peace is good, peace is what i want, but you cant have it when people are knokcing at your door with nukes and crap....

the irage peeeps didnt have it till we took care of sadam, now we still have sadam loyest out to fight to the last, which they will. the war was about giving and freeing the irague people, and making sure that sadam in the future would not try anything on the "American Infidels!" and for the most part yes, they love us for it, becuase now they are free, mostly, still havnt set up a fricken govornment.

razorace
12-15-2003, 09:20 PM
I think the issue here is that arguing solely on the issue of peace and/or international law is stupid and insanely radical. Peace without freedom is not worth anything. Otherwise, the Nazis and god knows who many other factions would have ruled the world.

Laws are designed to bring peace and freedom. If they don't, they need to be changed, period.

Now, if you want to argue that it's not the US's place to liberate the world for whatever reason, that's perfectly fine. However, you actually have to state that vs. "OMG! THEY VIOLATED THE UN CHARTER!" (which I might add every nation does).

Andy867
12-15-2003, 11:53 PM
Who says it always has to be about self-importance and about Oil? Does the fact of "Its the right thing to do" cross any of your minds? Saddam killed millions of his own people through some of the worst means possible. Anyone remember Desert Storm? Saddam was behind that and how he wanted to control Saudi Arabia, so the U.S. Stepped in to protect its ally and we tried getting him then, so this was just a prolonged man-hunt from 1993. Long overdue? Possible. Worth it. Just ask the Iraqi couple that were wed in broad daylight after Saddam left power and went into hiding. And how bout all those people who were fearfully loyal to Saddam who are now saying "Death to Saddam! Down with Saddam!" What America and its allies did in the coalition was definitely the right thing to do. We just didnt remove Saddam because of what he did to his own people, it what he COULD have done to the rest of the world. We prevented another Hitler essentially.

Jedi Luke
12-16-2003, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Andy867
Who says it always has to be about self-importance and about Oil? Does the fact of "Its the right thing to do" cross any of your minds? Saddam killed millions of his own people through some of the worst means possible. Anyone remember Desert Storm? Saddam was behind that and how he wanted to control Saudi Arabia, so the U.S. Stepped in to protect its ally and we tried getting him then, so this was just a prolonged man-hunt from 1993. Long overdue? Possible. Worth it. Just ask the Iraqi couple that were wed in broad daylight after Saddam left power and went into hiding. And how bout all those people who were fearfully loyal to Saddam who are now saying "Death to Saddam! Down with Saddam!" What America and its allies did in the coalition was definitely the right thing to do. We just didnt remove Saddam because of what he did to his own people, it what he COULD have done to the rest of the world. We prevented another Hitler essentially.

If this is the case then America should invade Zimbabwe and remove Mugabe from his tyranny. Mugabe has killed thousands and thousands of Zimbabweans. He IS essentially another Hitler. Why don't America do the same thing they did to Saddam and remove Mugabe preventing anymore violence by their dictator? Also I think we've gotta be careful in saying that Iraq is happy. Sure the majority of it is (or of what the media illustrate) but I was watching world news yesterday and already protests against America in the Southern Gaza strip were taking place, all of whom protesting FOR Saddam. These loyalists are extremely dangerous.

Yes Saddam had to be removed from power to prevent further death of Iraqis, but my point is this: If Amercia are eliminating these tyrants, then why doesn't America stop Mugabe? Simple reason (you've guessed it), Oil. Certainly for Bush along with other American leaders believe that the financial end justifies all means.

razorace
12-16-2003, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by Jedi Luke
If this is the case then America should invade Zimbabwe and remove Mugabe from his tyranny. Mugabe has killed thousands and thousands of Zimbabweans. He IS essentially another Hitler. Why don't America do the same thing they did to Saddam and remove Mugabe preventing anymore violence by their dictator? Also I think we've gotta be careful in saying that Iraq is happy. Sure the majority of it is (or of what the media illustrate) but I was watching world news yesterday and already protests against America in the Southern Gaza strip were taking place, all of whom protesting FOR Saddam. These loyalists are extremely dangerous.

Yes Saddam had to be removed from power to prevent further death of Iraqis, but my point is this: If Amercia are eliminating these tyrants, then why doesn't America stop Mugabe? Simple reason (you've guessed it), Oil. Certainly for Bush along with other American leaders believe that the financial end justifies all means.

Like I mentioned earlier, we don't have the resources (polictically and militarily) to go in and take out every tyrant in the world. We can and have intervened militarily in countries where we had no financail interests. Unfortunately, with the way the current policial system works, our attention tends to be controlled by the public opinion rather than actual need.

And before you start pointing your finger at the US for not doing enough, consider what France, Germany, and the other nay-sayers have done to fight tyrants thru out the world.

Sure the majority of it is (or of what the media illustrate) but I was watching world news yesterday and already protests against America in the Southern Gaza strip were taking place, all of whom protesting FOR Saddam. These loyalists are extremely dangerous.

The Gaza Strip is not Iraqi land and those are palestians, not Iraqis. But, I agree those dudes are dangerous. Unfortunately, a lot of people still think it's ok to negoicate with terrorists in the case of the Middle East conflict. :|

Andy867
12-16-2003, 12:32 AM
Well, we ALL know why FRANCE wont get involved in any more wars . They dont know HOW to fight wars, just be defeated and have their asses saved by the Americans. Seriously though, if you dont believe me, go to Google and type in French Military victories, and it will come up and say "Do you mean French military defeats?" But anyways, Razorace is right. We dont have the resources we would need to rmove every Tyrant on this earth, just the worst ones. compared to Saddam, that Zimbabwe guy is a pushover, when you consider that Saddam killed MILLIONS upon millions of Iraqis and others, where this Zimbabwe guy killed thousands. See the difference?

El Sitherino
12-16-2003, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by Andy867
Who says it always has to be about self-importance and about Oil? Does the fact of "Its the right thing to do" cross any of your minds? Saddam killed millions of his own people through some of the worst means possible. Anyone remember Desert Storm? Saddam was behind that and how he wanted to control Saudi Arabia, so the U.S. Stepped in to protect its ally and we tried getting him then, so this was just a prolonged man-hunt from 1993. Long overdue? Possible. Worth it. Just ask the Iraqi couple that were wed in broad daylight after Saddam left power and went into hiding. And how bout all those people who were fearfully loyal to Saddam who are now saying "Death to Saddam! Down with Saddam!" What America and its allies did in the coalition was definitely the right thing to do. We just didnt remove Saddam because of what he did to his own people, it what he COULD have done to the rest of the world. We prevented another Hitler essentially. I would have gone after North Korea, since they DO have nuclear capacity._Now I am glad Saddam is out of the picture, he was an evil person. If Bush said "we are going to Iraq in order to liberate them" I wouldn't have any problem, but he kept going on and on about WMD's that don't exist, that's my problem with Bush, the fact that he lied.

El Sitherino
12-16-2003, 01:49 AM
Also, leave national attacks out of this.
Perhaps the French prefer non-violent solutions to conflicts, yes there is such a thing as non-violence. ;)

XERXES
12-16-2003, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by STTCT
Now why can't they just get Osama?

It just proves that you can run, but you can't hide!

seems like he didnt run far enough, he was caught in Iraq right? haha...

XERXES
12-16-2003, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by The_One

The biggest irony of them all is this:

The USA is trying to bring peace to the world. How are they doing that? With war. Yes, bring peace with war.

Classic. so um...how many times has that been done in the past....not bu the us.


im not getting into an argument because all the anti-bush, anti-war haters and bandwagoneers all say the same crap over and over its pointless:rolleyes: I'll just let them bathe in their own ignorancy and not get involved.

Jedi Luke
12-16-2003, 04:53 AM
Originally posted by Andy867
Zimbabwe guy is a pushover, when you consider that Saddam killed MILLIONS upon millions of Iraqis and others, where this Zimbabwe guy killed thousands. See the difference?

(not reffering to Saddam being captured in this comment)

He probably has killed millions!! And NO I don't see the difference. Thousands of deaths are still a lot of deaths, you think about everyone you know and imagine if they were all executed. Do all those people match up to THOUSANDS?! No! That's why Mugabe must be stopped too!

So why don't the US go in and stop Mugabe BEFORE HE DOES KILL MILLIONS!?!?!?!? He's no pushover!!

ET Warrior
12-16-2003, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel
Without war, there can be no peace.

Using war to attain peace is like using sex to attain virginity.

CapNColostomy
12-16-2003, 06:18 AM
Buncha tree huggin' hippies around here. Whether or not the U.S. goes to war, let me assure you there will be war. And it's real easy to sit and type about how you want peace when it isn't YOUR ASS doing the fighting. Spines anyone?

razorace
12-16-2003, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
Also, leave national attacks out of this.
Perhaps the French prefer non-violent solutions to conflicts, yes there is such a thing as non-violence. ;)

While I can respect people wanting to stick to non-violent means in all situations, the fact of the matter is that true tyrants can only be removed from power by force.

Now, the biggie is who does the forcin'. As a foreign power, you basically have three types of ways to help this happen:

1. Indirect actions (political/trade sanctions/Cold Waring/etc) that encourage the native people to raise up against their opposers ("Mr. Gorbekov, tear down this wall.") Unfortunately, this doesn't so much triggers a revolution as it accelerates the revolutionary cycle. As such, tyrants have a tight power base (the worst kind) won't really be affected by this sort of action.

2. Direct actions like providing intel, weapons, etc. to rebel groups.

3. Direct Force

Countries like France have deminstrated that they aren't willing to go beyond indirect actions in any case that doesn't involve themselves. This makes things difficult for the nations (like the US) that actually want get things done.

El Sitherino
12-16-2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by CapNColostomy
Buncha tree huggin' hippies around here. Whether or not the U.S. goes to war, let me assure you there will be war. And it's real easy to sit and type about how you want peace when it isn't YOUR ASS doing the fighting. Spines anyone? I understand there will always be war, what you don't get is that many are pissed at how we went to war. We went to war based on a lie and we then had to throw in a distraction to cover up the lie by saying we're removing Saddam from power in order to liberate the Iraqi people.

Also, why is it that Bush isn't allowing ANYONE but America and Britian to hold stock and contracts with the oil claims and such? Britian wasn't the only country at our side during this invasion.

Don't get me wrong people, I'm damn glad Saddam is captured and I hope they torture his ass off even after they get all the info they want. I just am pissed that Bush didn't just say "We're going to Iraq to get rid of that evil man Saddam in order to salvage the Iraqi people's human rights."



Also, does anyone remember Napoleon? Seems with all this talk about French never winning battles you people don't. But I could care less on how many battles the French have won. Besides, who cares if they didn't back us. They have the right to choose, seems Americans should respect that, being the land of the free and all.:rolleyes:

El Sitherino
12-16-2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by XERXES
seems like he didnt run far enough, he was caught in Iraq right? haha... Well, it's not like he could go anywhere, he's recognized all over the world. And remember Bush's speeches about any country that harbors terrorists will meet opposition with US forces?

I doubt any country would want to harbor him and take chances facing off with the US.

IG-64
12-16-2003, 01:27 PM
BOO! To the senate where all the boring political threads go :wornout: :bored:

XERXES
12-16-2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
Well, it's not like he could go anywhere, he's recognized all over the world. And remember Bush's speeches about any country that harbors terrorists will meet opposition with US forces?

I doubt any country would want to harbor him and take chances facing off with the US. good point...Osama aparently ran his tail off though...or dug some extreemly deep hole. *shrug* oh well.

I dunno I would think a man with that kind of power could do things in secret such as go hide somewhere...like antartica:p

Lathain Valtiel
12-16-2003, 02:02 PM
Actually, Osama has been spotted in Iran.

XERXES
12-16-2003, 02:12 PM
Link?


I dont have a TV, and dont go to news sites very often :p

ET Warrior
12-16-2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by CapNColostomy
Buncha tree huggin' hippies around here. Whether or not the U.S. goes to war, let me assure you there will be war. And it's real easy to sit and type about how you want peace when it isn't YOUR ASS doing the fighting. Spines anyone?

Because that makes perfect sense. I mean, why WOULDN'T the pacifists be putting OUR ASS out there doing the fighting. Since every fiber of my being tells me it's wrong to kill people and taking lives is never right, I should probably be the one out there with a gun:rolleyes: It's not a lack of spine, so much as a great deal of conscience

But I'm really with Insane on this one. Had Bush said from the beginning "Saddam is evil, Saddam is killing his own people, and we are going in there to get him out and free the people of Iraq" I would have accepted the war in Iraq, and even applauded the effort. But the fact that we went in there based on a LIE sort of makes me bitter.

CapNColostomy
12-16-2003, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
I understand there will always be war, what you don't get is that many are pissed at how we went to war. We went to war based on a lie and we then had to throw in a distraction to cover up the lie by saying we're removing Saddam from power in order to liberate the Iraqi people.

I can agree with that. As a matter of fact, I've said since the war started that had he came right out and said we're going to war for oil, and to oust Saddam, I'd have no problem with it at all.

Originally posted by InsaneSith
Also, why is it that Bush isn't allowing ANYONE but America and Britian to hold stock and contracts with the oil claims and such? Britian wasn't the only country at our side during this invasion.

Not true. This is taken from the AP. "Meanwhile, an Army spokesman disclosed that companies from France, Germany, Russia and Canada won't be eligible to replace Halliburton as the recipient of the oil reconstruction contract.

The Army Corps of Engineers (search) is reviewing bids and hopes to decide this month who will get the oil reconstruction deals worth up to $800 million in northern Iraq and $1.2 billion in the south.

The decision means an additional $2 billion in contracts in Iraq — not disclosed before — would be forbidden to countries that opposed the war, along with the $18.6 billion in Iraq work the Bush administration declared off limits earlier this week.

The countries that have been left out see the rules as payback, but Bush says limiting contracts to countries that sent troops and money to Iraq makes sense and will encourage more nations to join the U.S.-led coalition."

Britain is not the only nation in the coalition. :rolleyes:



Originally posted by InsaneSith
Don't get me wrong people, I'm damn glad Saddam is captured and I hope they torture his ass off even after they get all the info they want. I just am pissed that Bush didn't just say "We're going to Iraq to get rid of that evil man Saddam in order to salvage the Iraqi people's human rights."

Agreed.



Originally posted by InsaneSith
Also, does anyone remember Napoleon? Seems with all this talk about French never winning battles you people don't. But I could care less on how many battles the French have won. Besides, who cares if they didn't back us. They have the right to choose, seems Americans should respect that, being the land of the free and all.:rolleyes:

I remember Napoleon. Do you remember Waterloo? :rolleyes: I respect the frogs right to be skeert.

Originally posted by ET Warrior
Because that makes perfect sense. I mean, why WOULDN'T the pacifists be putting OUR ASS out there doing the fighting. Since every fiber of my being tells me it's wrong to kill people and taking lives is never right, I should probably be the one out there with a gun:rolleyes: It's not a lack of spine, so much as a great deal of conscience

Yeah, it's too bad that people get killed, but it happens every minute of every day. The real pity is that it doesn't happen to more pacifists. Seems to me these genetic defectives don't exactley fit in with Darwins theory of natural selection. Weeding of the gene pool in in serious order where these people are concerned. But anyway, when you come back from whatever fantasy world you're visiting, give me the directions on how to get there.:rolleyes:

ET Warrior
12-16-2003, 07:14 PM
See now, that's the problem right there. Nobody is willing to believe that it is POSSIBLE to live peacefully. They've decided there HAS to be violence and so therefore the violence continues.

Hey, if you can deal with killing people then you go ahead and do it. My conscience simply won't let me, because I recognize that THEY are HUMANS like me. They have hopes, dreams, lives, families, loved ones, and I will NOT be the one to take that from them. You can call me coward and you can call me weak but you will not shake my firm belief that EVERY human being has a right to live, and it is not ME who should choose when they lose that life.

razorace
12-16-2003, 07:44 PM
See now, that's the problem right there. Nobody is willing to believe that it is POSSIBLE to live peacefully. They've decided there HAS to be violence and so therefore the violence continues.

Hey, if you can deal with killing people then you go ahead and do it. My conscience simply won't let me, because I recognize that THEY are HUMANS like me. They have hopes, dreams, lives, families, loved ones, and I will NOT be the one to take that from them. You can call me coward and you can call me weak but you will not shake my firm belief that EVERY human being has a right to live, and it is not ME who should choose when they lose that life.

So, it's better to just stand there when you see innocent people killed even when using violence could stop it?

I agree that violence is very bad but often violence is the only way to stop violence.


Anyway, about this whole "lie" thing.

By definition a lie is....

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

First off, all the mountains of pre-war evidence pointed towards Saddam continueing to have WMDs and attempting to get more. Even the UN acknowledged this. As such, without real evidence of malice or deception, the claim can't be considered a lie, especially when we haven't concluded our search for WMDs.

Secondly, the investigation isn't over. If it took us this long to find Saddam, a living, breathing creature that requires air, food, etc, how long do you think it will take to find items in the same area that can be buried or hidden anywhere?

However, I will agree that the Bush administration didn't present enough evidence for the claim that there was a reasonable level of direct and immediate threat to the USA.

El Sitherino
12-16-2003, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by razorace
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
When he stated Saddam had WMD's he was meaning to decieve us by making us think he was a major threat. If Saddam does have any weapons of any form of destruction it's most likely 20 year old scuds that don't even function correctly. And those couldn't possibly reach the US. Therefore I consider it a lie. And the UN acknowledged Saddam was trying to purchase parts for nuclear weapons but not that he had any.

Also Bush was stating Saddam had a part in 9/11 which he didn't and that he was tied to Al-Queda, which he couldn't possibly be, he lacks the faith in Islam, Saddam isn't a religious man. He declared Iraq a place pretty much free of any religion.

razorace
12-16-2003, 11:21 PM
At the time, we were thinking that he had mobile biological labs so he could maintain his stock piles. We did actually find the mobile labs, they just didn't have weapons grade biological material in them. We've also found sample versions of various biological weapon agents, they just weren't refined to weapons grade.

Plus, Bush never stated that Saddam had a part in Sept 11. That was a urban legend that some how got picked up by the anti-war people. In fact, when people started to make a fuss about something that they never actually stated, they came out and directly stated that there was no evidence that Saddam had a part in Sept 11.

He did state that it was beleived that he had connections to Al-Queda and other terrorists. We know he had connections to terrorists because he was haborering terrorists (including one that had been in hiding since the early 80's). We also found some Al-Queda training camps in Iraq, but in all honesty they were in the northern part of the country where Saddam had little to no control.

And don't think those sort of connections to Al-Queda aren't possible because Saddam's government was more secular. Remember that normal enemies can and do become allies when a bigger threat comes along.

CapNColostomy
12-17-2003, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
See now, that's the problem right there. Nobody is willing to believe that it is POSSIBLE to live peacefully. They've decided there HAS to be violence and so therefore the violence continues.

No, I've ACCEPTED that there is, and always will be violence. So long as humans walk this earth there will be strife. It's nature, and not limited to our species. No ammount of marijauna, picket signs, or tie dyed shirts will change this. And besides, aren't there enough people? I mean, a far larger threat to peace is the ever looming threat of over population, and rapid consumption of natural resources. I'm not excluding myself or any loved ones from this (although I hope it takes us all a sweet long time to be phased out, especially me :D).

Breton
12-17-2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by razorace
At the time, we were thinking that he had mobile biological labs so he could maintain his stock piles. We did actually find the mobile labs, they just didn't have weapons grade biological material in them.



http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html

Instead, a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: 'They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.'

vegietto
12-17-2003, 01:05 PM
I am glad he is captured he deserve to be dead but i still think he should get a fair trial i mean everyone should get a fair trial no matter who u are i mean yes he is a mean dicator but he still should get a chance but that is my opinion and it probably doesn't mean anything but i think he should get a fair trial even tho he is going to get the death penalty.

SkinWalker
12-17-2003, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by razorace
Plus, Bush never stated that Saddam had a part in Sept 11. That was a urban legend that some how got picked up by the anti-war people.

In every public address that Bush made in which he mentioned Saddam Hussein he also mentioned 9/11, often within the same paragraph. What that amounts to is a cold, calculated deception. The average American believed 8 months to a year ago that Hussein was responsible, at least in part, for 9/11.

The average American also believed that Hussein had nuclear weapons that could reach the United States at that time.

Originally posted by razorace
He did state that it was beleived that he had connections to Al-Queda and other terrorists. We know he had connections to terrorists because he was haborering terrorists (including one that had been in hiding since the early 80's).

Who? What's his name?

Originally posted by razorace
And don't think those sort of connections to Al-Queda aren't possible because Saddam's government was more secular. Remember that normal enemies can and do become allies when a bigger threat comes along.

"The fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies, nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq"

-- Osama Bin Laden in a taped message just prior to the Invasion of Iraq.

razorace
12-17-2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by SkinWalker
In every public address that Bush made in which he mentioned Saddam Hussein he also mentioned 9/11, often within the same paragraph. What that amounts to is a cold, calculated deception. The average American believed 8 months to a year ago that Hussein was responsible, at least in part, for 9/11.

The average American also believed that Hussein had nuclear weapons that could reach the United States at that time.

If the average American is stupid, is that Bush's fault? Most Americans never watch or listen to his speeches anyway.

Besides, what's wrong with mentioning 9/11? It was the trigger that put us in this "war on terror" in the first place. Now, if he was directly impling that Saddam was involved in 9/11, yeah, I can understand being upset about that. But just mentioning 9/11 during the terrorism part of a speech doesn't do that.

If you want to prove any sort of "cold, calculated deception" you're going to need to show transcripts.

Who? What's his name?

Abu Abbas (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.abbas.arrested/)

"The fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies, nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq"

-- Osama Bin Laden in a taped message just prior to the Invasion of Iraq. [/B]

That doesn't prove much. The US in the 1940's was deeply against communism yet we gave them weapons and fought with them during WW2. Plus, that message was still encouraging people to go to Iraq to fight the Americans/UKs reguardless of the reason.

As for the mobile labs issue, did anyone else other than The Observer write about the officials thinking they weren't mobile biological labs? They mention a report but I can't find the actual report. Anyone know if the actual report was released?

The CIA still maintains that they were mobile labs and they were officially reported as such to Congress back in around augest/sept.

MennoniteHobbit
12-17-2003, 07:04 PM
Well, first of all, President Bush did mention Hussein because the US does have evidence that Hussein was linked with Al-Qaeda. Ignore what Hussein is currently saying under the US' interrogation; he's most likely "broken" after having to live in a spiderhole, with a ditch as his excretion bathroom.
Next, the US really didn't start a war. It was an operation, called OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. We were saving Iraq from the devilish dictator Hussein; not only were we saving Iraq, we were assuring everyone (not just our own butts) that terrorism would not attack anyone. We eliminated Hussein, and now its time for Bin Laden (even though I personally think he's dead).
Don't you think Hussein is that evil, as he alone held almost all of Iraq's finances, he alone made laws against oil smuggling, yet the smug hypocrit did that himself, so that he made millions, along with having over five palaces around Iraq, while hundreds of Iraqis are homeless on the street. Answer your thoughts, enough?
And last of all, even though Hans Blix and the UN inspectors never found nuclear and other WMD's, that doesn't make the fact that no WMD's existed true. Just because no one finds anything doesn't mean it's not there. Think about that for a moment. I still believe that Hussein had (maybe not anymore in his possession) WMD's, even though he isn't fessing up to the US interrogator.
One more thing... to what SkinWalker was quoting Bin Laden... don't you people know of fakes? How do we know that that tape had Bin Laden? Hussein himself hired and paid five people to have plastic surgery to look exactly like him. Bin Laden's 500-member family ;) is rich, so they have the money and technology to duplicate his voice.

obi
12-17-2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit
Well, first of all, President Bush did mention Hussein because the US does have evidence that Hussein was linked with Al-Qaeda. ........

Next, the US really didn't start a war. It was an operation, called OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. .........


First of all, most of the information that was handed to Mr. Powell at the UN hearing was falsafied. It's even admitted by the CIA and other organizations that the "Documents were not entirely true." Do I think Saddam was a bad man? Yes. Was he linked to Al-Qaeda? I doubt it.

The US didn't start a war? It started Operation Iraqi Freedom? The Difference? None. People get shot and die in both. Besides, you say it's a "war on terror," but you don't call this a war, it's an operation? Make up your mind.

Anyway, I'm glad they cought Saddam. Hopefully this will almost kill remaining resistance.

The_One
12-17-2003, 07:16 PM
I think a lot of you are missing the point here, and I gave up this useless argument long ago. I think we are all just going to have to agree to disagree.

One final thought though:

Saddam: Sold weapons and supported by the USA. He then turned this against America.

Osama: Trained by the CIA, and used this training in his war on America.

Which nation looks idiotic now?

I'm out, have fun...

obi
12-17-2003, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by The_One

Osama:Trained by the CIA, and used this training in his war on America.


Really? I wasn't aware of this......

Got a linky?

El Sitherino
12-17-2003, 08:28 PM
link 1 (http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp#BODY)
link 2 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/155236.stm)
link 3 (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/binladen.profile/)
Next, the US really didn't start a war. It was an operation, called OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM. .........
Are you dense? A war is called an operation. The Gulf War was known as Operation: Desert Storm. You really need to open your eyes to reality kid.

razorace
12-17-2003, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by obi-wan13
First of all, most of the information that was handed to Mr. Powell at the UN hearing was falsafied. It's even admitted by the CIA and other organizations that the "Documents were not entirely true."

Woah, woah, woah. That's a huge charge. You got any physical evidence for that because if you do it's the biggest scandel since Watergate?

Remember there's a big difference between intel being wrong and actually falsifying stuff. By it's nature, intel is not always true. Sometimes your contacts are wrong, you're being feed bogus data, etc. But that's not the same as stating that the evidence was falsified (IE invented by the administration/intel agencies).

razorace
12-17-2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by The_One

Saddam: Sold weapons and supported by the USA. He then turned this against America.

Osama: Trained by the CIA, and used this training in his war on America.

There's a reason for that stuff. Both were done because we were attempting to fight a "greater evil".

In Osama's case, we were helping them fight the Russians who were trying to take over Afganistan.

In Saddam's case, we were secretly supporting both Iraq and Iran during their war in the hopes that they would stalemate and wipe each other out.

Personally, I think our problem is that we aren't careful enough about making sure the people we're supporting aren't going to end up being very bad people.

The_One
12-17-2003, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by razorace
Woah, woah, woah. That's a huge charge. You got any physical evidence for that because if you do it's the biggest scandel since Watergate?

Remember there's a big difference between intel being wrong and actually falsifying stuff. By it's nature, intel is not always true. Sometimes your contacts are wrong, you're being feed bogus data, etc. But that's not the same as stating that the evidence was falsified (IE invented by the administration/intel agencies).

Bah, I'm back...

You clearly haven't heard of the Hutton Inquiry have you? OK, that was in the UK, but our government falsified - sorry "sexed up" - documents prior to the war with Iraq. And they got away with it, or at least have so far - just until Hutton publishes his report in January, though I wouldn't hold out much hope.

There's a reason for that stuff. Both were done because we were attempting to fight a "greater evil".

In Osama's case, we were helping them fight the Russians who were trying to take over Afganistan.

In Saddam's case, we were secretly supporting both Iraq and Iran during their war in the hopes that they would stalemate and wipe each other out.

Doesn't that lead you to the conclusion that there was a reason other than "liberation" as to why the war on Iraq occured? Considering American foreign policy is very much centered around its own interests, do you think "liberation" is really a valid reason? And please don't give me that bull**** about how Saddam was a threat to anyone outside his own country. The reasons I specified in an earlier post seem far more plausible as to why we got involved - and certainly reflect "own interests".

Do you honestly think that the US administration is going to spend vast somes of tax payers money, unless they see some benefit themselves? The "liberation" of the Iraqi people (many Iraqis, of course, not happy about the Coalition invasion) does not serve American interests - obviously, there are other reasons (see other post).

If you cannot see this you are blind.

obi
12-17-2003, 10:45 PM
@Razorace:

I heard it on the news A while back, about 2 months after Colin's presentation to the UN. I am not charging anything, merely repeating what I heard. I'll try to find a link though. Might be hard because it was news a few months ago. Be Right Back.

Edit- Found one.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-10-powell-usat_x.htm

I'll look for more.

El Sitherino
12-18-2003, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by razorace
If the average American is stupid, is that Bush's fault? Most Americans never watch or listen to his speeches anyway.

Besides, what's wrong with mentioning 9/11? It was the trigger that put us in this "war on terror" in the first place. Now, if he was directly impling that Saddam was involved in 9/11, yeah, I can understand being upset about that. But just mentioning 9/11 during the terrorism part of a speech doesn't do that.\ link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm)
As recently as last Sunday, Vice-President Dick Cheney, refused to rule out a link between Iraq and 11 September, saying "'we don't know".

"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." link 2 (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/12/17/still_no_mass_weapons_no_ties_to_911_no_truth/)

In August 2002, Vice President Cheney said: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
On March 30, a week and a half after the start of the invasion, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld boasted about the weapons of mass destruction, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat."

Nine months later, no chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction have been found.

There were the administration's attempts to tie Saddam to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. They worked so well that nearly 70 percent of Americans believed Saddam was "personally involved" in the attacks. On March 21, two days after announcing the invasion, Bush wrote a letter to congressional leaders in which he said: "The use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001."

and my favorite ;)


By the fall, after Cheney revived a discredited claim that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence agent prior to the attacks, Bush was forced to admit, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September the 11th."

Bush scared Americans with fears of an Iraq armed with nuclear weapons. In his State of the Union address last January, Bush said: "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." That claim had been discredited months earlier by many US intelligence sources. Bush used it anyway.

another link (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0918-03.htm)
another (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm)
President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.

razorace
12-18-2003, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by The_One
[B]You clearly haven't heard of the Hutton Inquiry have you? OK, that was in the UK, but our government falsified - sorry "sexed up" - documents prior to the war with Iraq. And they got away with it, or at least have so far - just until Hutton publishes his report in January, though I wouldn't hold out much hope.

Source?

Doesn't that lead you to the conclusion that there was a reason other than "liberation" as to why the war on Iraq occured? Considering American foreign policy is very much centered around its own interests, do you think "liberation" is really a valid reason? And please don't give me that bull**** about how Saddam was a threat to anyone outside his own country. The reasons I specified in an earlier post seem far more plausible as to why we got involved - and certainly reflect "own interests".

Saddam's government was a proven thread to his neighbor nations.

Do you honestly think that the US administration is going to spend vast somes of tax payers money, unless they see some benefit themselves? The "liberation" of the Iraqi people (many Iraqis, of course, not happy about the Coalition invasion) does not serve American interests - obviously, there are other reasons (see other post).

You make it sounds like American interests are a bad thing. Of course we did it because we felt it was in our best interests, that's basic economic theory. However, that's not a bad thing. Promoting freedom can, does, and has been in the best interests of the USA.

As for the accusation that we're doing it "for the oil", how are we suppose to get our "investment" back when we're paying market price for Iraqi oil? How does that change things from before the war? Sure, we're probably getting more in volume vs the former Food-for-Oil program, but the market value hasn't been affected much. So how could we have possible expected to make money off this deal?

All the independant polls taken are showing that a vast majority of the Iraqi people are glad that the US/UK invaded.

If you cannot see this you are blind.

Argumentum ad hominem (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem)

I heard it on the news A while back, about 2 months after Colin's presentation to the UN. I am not charging anything, merely repeating what I heard. I'll try to find a link though. Might be hard because it was news a few months ago. Be Right Back.

Ok, you're talking about the documents that claimed that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium from Africa.

1. That wasn't part of the evidence presented to the UN. That was mentioned briefly (16 words) in the last State of the Union address. By any definition, that does not count as "most" even if it had been included in Powell's presentation to the UN since there was truckloads of intel that Powell presented.

2. After farther investigation, the CIA decided (not proved) that the document was probably not real because they weren't able to find any other collaberating evidence.

3. The UK government is still stating that they beleive the document is real based on additional intel that they have.

So basically, there's no actual evidence that directly states that the document is fake. In fact, the opposite is true, the UK government states that they have classified information that shows that it is true.

Even if it is fake, there's no evidence of who actually created it so there's nothing that indicates any malice on the part of the US government....unless you're the crazy conspiracy type, but then this forum probably isn't for you. :)

obi
12-18-2003, 01:36 AM
I'm no person that strongly believes in conspiraces, but I'm not totally dumb either. Bush started this war based soley on WMD. There were none that could be found. Bush changes Tactics. Now all of a sudden, the war is on Saddam himself, and getting him out of power for heroic and moral reasons.

What happened to the WMD case? Why the change of reason for war?

So many questions, so few answers.

razorace
12-18-2003, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
As recently as last Sunday, Vice-President Dick Cheney, refused to rule out a link between Iraq and 11 September, saying "'we don't know".

"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

And how is saying we doing "we don't know" when asked about it implying a connection?

As for the second part of the quote, he's talking about Iraq being in "the center" of the Arab world, which is where most of the world's terrorists come from and where ALL the 9/11 hijackers came from. He didn't state that they came from Iraq. It is vague however.

Stuff about quotes about WMDs in link 2[quote]

And how is that relivant to my statement about the government not stating that there were iraqi links to 9/11 other than the fact that the article likes to say "no ties to 9/11" a lot? You're changing the subject.

[quote]another link (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0918-03.htm)

"It's not surprising" when asked a question about the public thinking that Saddam is involved?! That's some hardcore finger pointing there. :P That's a pretty weak implication. It's pretty offhanded, taken out of context, and a comment about Saddam being suspected by the public (probably because he's a bad, bad man that has been a supporter of terrorists and a general troublemaker) rather than implying that he was actually involved. Again, it is vague. It looks like that is just something that Cheney does; That's hardly a "cold, calculated deception".

In addition, Bush went out of his way to clarify almost immediately afterwards.

another (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm)
President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however

And how does that prove anything? It's an opinion of the writer without any sort of evidence to back it up.

razorace
12-18-2003, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by obi-wan13
[B]I'm no person that strongly believes in conspiraces, but I'm not totally dumb either. Bush started this war based soley on WMD. There were none that could be found. Bush changes Tactics. Now all of a sudden, the war is on Saddam himself, and getting him out of power for heroic and moral reasons.

Gee, that's funny cause he and Colin mentioned other reasons in various presentations and speeches (including the State of the Union) before the war started. However, admittedly it was the main reason given.

What happened to the WMD case? Why the change of reason for war?

That's easy. They've changed tactics because the investigation is ongoing and because the anti-war people weren't accepting what they've discovered so far.

toms
12-18-2003, 12:56 PM
originally posted by Bill Hicks…I dunno. Once again, it was watching the ****'n news that threw really me off. It depressed everyone. It's just so scary watching the news, how they built it all out of proportion, like Iraq was ever our could ever possibly under any stretch of the imagination be a threat to us whatsoever.

But!

Watching the news you never would have got that idea.

Remember how it started they kept talking about the Elite Republican Guard in these hushed tones, like these guys are the boogey man or something.

--Yeah, we're doing well now but we have yet to face the Elite Republican Guard.

Like these guys were twelve feet tall desert warriors.

--Never lost a battle! We **** bullets!

Yeah, well, after two months of continuous carpet bombing and not ONE reaction at all from them, they became simply "the Republican Guard". Hahahaha.
Not nearly as elite as we may have led you to believe.
And after another month of bombing they went from the Elite Republican Guard to the Republican Guard to the Republicans made this **** up about there being guards out there.

Ah, we hope you enjoyed your fireworks show.

--It was so pretty, and it took our mind off of domestic issues.

The Persian Gulf Distraction.

People say uh-uh Bill, Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world.

Yeah, maybe, but you know what? After the first three largest armies there's a real big ****ing drop-off. The Hare Kirshnas are the fifth largest army in the world. And they've already got our airports. Okay? I think that's the real threat right now. Mr. Onionhead in Terminal C is scaring the **** out of me. Get him away from me.

It was an amazing thing though.

And the amazing thing obviously is the disparity in the casualties. Iraq, a hundred and fifty THOUSAND casualties. USA, seventy-nine. Iraq one hundred and fifty THOUSAND. USA, seventy nine...

Does that mean if we'd sent over 80 guys we still could have won that ****'n thing or what? One guy in a tickertape parade:

--I did it! Hey! You're welcome!
--Good work Tommy! How'd you do it?

the more things change, the more they stay the same...

The_One
12-18-2003, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by razorace
[B]Source?

Errr, you are kidding right? You haven't heard of the Hutton Inquiry?! How can you claim to have knowledge on this subject if you haven't even heard of this major inquiry in both UK, and international politics?

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/

Or just type "hutton inquiry" into Google and see what comes up...


Saddam's government was a proven thread to his neighbor nations.

I assume you mean "threat"? Anyway, he hasn't been a threat since the end of the first Gulf War.


You make it sounds like American interests are a bad thing. Of course we did it because we felt it was in our best interests, that's basic economic theory. However, that's not a bad thing. Promoting freedom can, does, and has been in the best interests of the USA.

Come on, "liberating" the Iraqi people was not in American interests. Having a power base in the Middle East certainly was.

As for the accusation that we're doing it "for the oil", how are we suppose to get our "investment" back when we're paying market price for Iraqi oil? How does that change things from before the war? Sure, we're probably getting more in volume vs the former Food-for-Oil program, but the market value hasn't been affected much. So how could we have possible expected to make money off this deal?

If you'd read one of my previous posts you would have noted that I don't think oil is one of the major factors for going to war. It is one of them, certainly, and the companies associated with Dick Cheney (with Oil investments in Iraq) seem to be doing very well at the moment - coincidence, eh?

All the independant polls taken are showing that a vast majority of the Iraqi people are glad that the US/UK invaded.

What polls have you been reading? Some of them are glad, but there's still a hell of a lot that are not.

Argumentum ad hominem (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem)

I'm simply stating that it is obvious that the Coalition did not suddenly decide to invade Iraq just to "liberate" them, or indeed because they were a threat. The evidence is all there in front of you, I just wish more people would see it...

toms
12-18-2003, 03:16 PM
All the independant polls taken are showing that a vast majority of the Iraqi people are glad that the US/UK invaded.

the polls all show that they are glad that saddam is gone. They also show that about 35% of them think the US invaded to increase its power in the middle east, 35% think the US did it for oil and 20% think they did it to "undermine islam" or something. about 3% think they did it for any sort of benevolent reason, and most want to see the back of them almost as much as they wanted to see the back of saddam. So they may be glad to get rid of saddam, but they don't like the US/UK any more than most of the rest of the world do.

I'm just glad that the region and the world are now much more stable, safe places since the war on iraq. :D :D :D :D :D *cough*rubbish!*cough*

The_One
12-18-2003, 03:53 PM
Don't you find it ironic that we've managed to destablise even further one of the most unstable regions on the planet?

Originally posted by razorace
In Saddam's case, we were secretly supporting both Iraq and Iran during their war in the hopes that they would stalemate and wipe each other out.

I meant to point out some of the inaccuracies in this statement earlier, but forgot.

In the Iran-Iraq war, America claimed to stay neutral, but then began to help Iraq as they deemed an Iranian victory would not serve their interests. They supplied them with many different forms of aid, including satellite photos so Saddam could gas the Iranian troops. In late 1984 the US restored formal relations with Iraq, just a year after the gassing of Iranian troops, but they had been helping Iraq for many years before. THE US SUPPORTED THE IRAQI REGIME AND NOT THE IRANIAN REGIME. If you want more information on this, just search the net.

When the US was helping Iraq, the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. It is also interesting to note that the US did not cut off ties with Saddam's regime when he gassed the Kurds - the Reagan administration refused to let Congress pass economic sanctions on Iraq.

The US was a big supporter of Iraq in the 80s, and this is most probably due to the desire to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.

But somewhere it went wrong...

The Count
12-18-2003, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by The_One
Don't you find it ironic that we've managed to destablise even further one of the most unstable regions on the planet?



I meant to point out some of the inaccuracies in this statement earlier, but forgot.

In the Iran-Iraq war, America claimed to stay neutral, but then began to help Iraq as they deemed an Iranian victory would not serve their interests. They supplied them with many different forms of aid, including satellite photos so Saddam could gas the Iranian troops. In late 1984 the US restored formal relations with Iraq, just a year after the gassing of Iranian troops, but they had been helping Iraq for many years before. THE US SUPPORTED THE IRAQI REGIME AND NOT THE IRANIAN REGIME. If you want more information on this, just search the net.

When the US was helping Iraq, the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. It is also interesting to note that the US did not cut off ties with Saddam's regime when he gassed the Kurds - the Reagan administration refused to let Congress pass economic sanctions on Iraq.

The US was a big supporter of Iraq in the 80s, and this is most probably due to the desire to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.

But somewhere it went wrong...

The vast majority of this is true.

El Sitherino
12-18-2003, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by razorace
And how is saying we doing "we don't know" when asked about it implying a connection?

As for the second part of the quote, he's talking about Iraq being in "the center" of the Arab world, which is where most of the world's terrorists come from and where ALL the 9/11 hijackers came from. He didn't state that they came from Iraq. wrong. He's not talking about the arab world, he's talking about Iraq. This was from a Press conference on Iraq.
Also he's not talking about the guys being from Iraq, he's saying there is a connection, which there isn't.

And also why do people say that a terrorist living in a country means that country's government is supporting them, the guys that commited 9/11 lived in America for many years before hijacking the planes.

razorace
12-18-2003, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
[B]wrong. He's not talking about the arab world, he's talking about Iraq. This was from a Press conference on Iraq.
Also he's not talking about the guys being from Iraq, he's saying there is a connection, which there isn't.

"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Bagdad and the the surrounding area has been considered the geographic/cultural center of the arab world for a long time. He was saying that Iraq was the heart of the geographic base (IE the Middle East), not the entire geographical base. Had he stated that Bagdad was the heart of the geographic base (more more localized), then he'd be implying that all those terrorists were coming from Iraq. With his actual statement, it's just a very slim implication due to poor phrase that the anti-war protesters can pick out as if it's the Mother of All Finger Pointing.

and why do people say that a terrorist living in a country means that country's government is supporting them, the guys that commited 9/11 lived in America for many years before hijacking the planes.

People are referring to their country of origin, not where they are currently living. And you're right that the governments are not nessicarily directly supporting these terrorists. However, it's often the results of the decisions of such governments (encouraging religious fundimentalism, keeping the majority of the people poor by spending oil money on fancy cars and palaces, non-representitive governments, etc.) that make them "breeding grounds" for terrorists.

SkinWalker
12-19-2003, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by razorace
If the average American is stupid, is that Bush's fault? Most Americans never watch or listen to his speeches anyway.

So are ignorant citizens less deserving of quality government than informed ones?

Originally posted by razorace
Besides, what's wrong with mentioning 9/11? It was the trigger that put us in this "war on terror" in the first place.

The War on Terror would be best fought against terrorists. We wasted time, money and lives against Hussein when we could have been fighting the War on Terror. Instead, the Bush admin put it on hold and attacked the nearest stooge: Iraq. Mentioning 9/11 when discussing military plans for Iraq was intended to justify these plans and gain public support.

Originally posted by razorace
Now, if he was directly impling that Saddam was involved in 9/11, yeah, I can understand being upset about that. But just mentioning 9/11 during the terrorism part of a speech doesn't do that.

You're either not understanding what I'm attempting to say, or you deliberately refuse to believe it. Bush and co. mentioned 9/11 and Al Qaeda during public addresses about Iraq/Saddam in order to create a correlation. In spite of the fact that the correlation only existed within those public addresses.

Originally posted by razorace
If you want to prove any sort of "cold, calculated deception" you're going to need to show transcripts.

I can do that. Again and again if need be: Bush Speech on October 7, 2002 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html).

Here are a few excerpts:

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace,

And in the very next sentance:

The threat comes from Iraq

Fair enough... there was a threat, albeit very small. Nothing in Iraq's arsenal could reach US interests. But that's a moot point. Next item, same paragraph:

The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

Suffice it to say, Saddam Hussein and the Bath party were bad people. We've always known it. The world has a surprising number of bad regimes. But in the very next paragraph, Bush begins with:

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

If this were not a calculated deception, we would be at war with N. Korea, Syria, India, Pakistan, and Israel as well as several former Soviet states. They each have WMD (verifiably and often admittidly) as well as despots, terrorists, unstable regimes, etc. Moreover, each is in violation of the United Nations.

Consider, also, what Bush said in the speech linked above about the supposed Saddam-Osama link: that there were "high-level contacts that go back a decade." In fact, intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and an infant Al Qaeda in the early 1990's, but found no good evidence of a continuing relationship. So Bush made what sounded like an assertion of an ongoing relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but phrased it cagily, suggesting that he knew full well that his case was shaky.

Originally posted by razorace
Abu Abbas (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.abbas.arrested/)

You did note that this terrorist was a Palestinian, right? Saddam has always had a special affinity for Palestinian terrorists (which much of the Muslim world considers to be "freedom fighters") since they offer overt resistance to Israel. If there is one country Saddam hated more than the U.S., it was Israel.

Originally posted by razorace
As for the mobile labs issue, did anyone else other than The Observer write about the officials thinking they weren't mobile biological labs? They mention a report but I can't find the actual report. Anyone know if the actual report was released?

Do you really think that if it was confirmed these were bioweapons labs that this wouldn't have received considerable mention by the Bush admin, which has been criticized time and again for failing to show any evidence of WMDs after nearly a year?

razorace
12-19-2003, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by SkinWalker
So are ignorant citizens less deserving of quality government than informed ones?

What does that question have to do with anything we're talking about? You just trying to bait me into a trap with that loaded question.

The War on Terror would be best fought against terrorists. We wasted time, money and lives against Hussein when we could have been fighting the War on Terror. Instead, the Bush admin put it on hold and attacked the nearest stooge: Iraq. Mentioning 9/11 when discussing military plans for Iraq was intended to justify these plans and gain public support.

I agree that the mentioning of 9/11 when discussing Iraq was intentioned to gain public support for the planned actions. However, we did not put the "war on terror" on hold for the invasion of iraq. The intel agencies and the military have continued to work on battling terrorism during the this whole Iraq thing. Remember that the military and CIA/FBI are always multiple "balls in the air" at once.

I also agree that the money and manpower could have been better spent elsewhere, however, the administration and Congress thought otherwise. *shrug*

Finally, a method of battling terrorism or crime in general is to confront and punish the support network of such attacks, not just the criminals themselves (afterall, Osama wasn't involved in anything other than the support and planning stages of 9/11). We also know for a fact that Saddam was publically supporting suicide bombers with payments to the bomber's families.

You're either not understanding what I'm attempting to say, or you deliberately refuse to believe it. Bush and co. mentioned 9/11 and Al Qaeda during public addresses about Iraq/Saddam in order to create a correlation. In spite of the fact that the correlation only existed within those public addresses.

Have you considered that they might mention 9/11 a lot because it's the chief motivator behind the war on terror?

If this were not a calculated deception, we would be at war with N. Korea, Syria, India, Pakistan, and Israel as well as several former Soviet states. They each have WMD (verifiably and often admittidly) as well as despots, terrorists, unstable regimes, etc. Moreover, each is in violation of the United Nations.

It's pretty obvious that the statements were meant to be taken figuratively to make a point. There's also the "threat" that the moon might suddenly crash into Earth and "bring sudden terror and suffering to America" but it doesn't mean that we're going to declare war on the moon. In addition, he makes no comment in terms of timeframe or what he defines "confront" as.

In fact, intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and an infant Al Qaeda in the early 1990's, but found no good evidence of a continuing relationship.

Clarify "good" evidence, do you mean that there's no evidence at all, or just not as strong as the original evidence showing a connection back in the early 90's?

You did note that this terrorist was a Palestinian, right? Saddam has always had a special affinity for Palestinian terrorists (which much of the Muslim world considers to be "freedom fighters") since they offer overt resistance to Israel. If there is one country Saddam hated more than the U.S., it was Israel.

Sure, he's Palestinian, but what does that have to do with anything? A terrorist is a terrorist. You can't just say, "Oh, he's a Palestinian so he's not really a terrorist."

Do you really think that if it was confirmed these were bioweapons labs that this wouldn't have received considerable mention by the Bush admin, which has been criticized time and again for failing to show any evidence of WMDs after nearly a year?

They did make a big deal out of the mobile labs in the presentation they made to Congress on the progress in the search for WMDs. However, everyone that's on the anti-war track just brushed it off because the labs (like most things in life) had potential non-violent uses.

Of the evidence that has been shown so far, we've seen that Saddam had been hiding components specifically required to create new biological and nuclear weapons (uraninum refinery parts, virus cultures, etc). We just haven't found actual weapons grade WMDs yet.

Errr, you are kidding right? You haven't heard of the Hutton Inquiry?! How can you claim to have knowledge on this subject if you haven't even heard of this major inquiry in both UK, and international politics?

I'm aware of the UK's inquiry but I'm not aware of the results having been leaked to the press. That's what I was requesting the source link for.

razorace
12-19-2003, 02:16 AM
Anyway, it's getting way too serious in here. I suggest some bipartisan political cartoons about the capture of Saddam. (http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/SaddamCaptured/main.asp)

SkinWalker
12-19-2003, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by razorace
What does that question have to do with anything we're talking about? You just trying to bait me into a trap with that loaded question.

If you saw that question ("So are ignorant citizens less deserving of quality government than informed ones?") as anything but rhetorical, then I'm not sure what to think. It certainly was not bait, nor was it loaded. You suggested that the President might be allowed to deceive the public as long as "the average American is stupid." I gave an opposing argument in the form of a rhetorical question in the assumption that you didn't believe that "ignorant citizens" were less deserving of quality government.

Originally posted by razorace
However, we did not put the "war on terror" on hold for the invasion of iraq. The intel agencies and the military have continued to work on battling terrorism during the this whole Iraq thing. Remember that the military and CIA/FBI are always multiple "balls in the air" at once.

True. Perhaps "on hold" was a poor choice of words, however, I would argue that significantly more could have been done with the War on Terror if we weren't also fighting the War on Saddam, which consumed over $160 billion and 474 American lives to date.

Originally posted by razorace
We also know for a fact that Saddam was publically supporting suicide bombers with payments to the bomber's families.

But these suicide bombers are not a threat to the United States, nor is it likely that Saddam's removal will reduce the frequency of suicide bomber attacks. Moreover, the label of "terrorist" on suicide bombers is a Western one (which I happen to agree with). From a Islamic point of view, these are "Freedom Fighters." Interestingly enough, they use many of the same tactics and amount of brutality that we taught Bin Laden to use in Afghanistan as the Mujahadeen terrorized the Russians.

Originally posted by razorace
Have you considered that they might mention 9/11 a lot because it's the chief motivator behind the war on terror?

Absolutely. And I agree that that would account for a few mentions of 9/11. But I cannot recall a single public address of President Bush where he discussed Saddam Hussein that did not include mention of 9/11 and/or Al-Queda.

Originally posted by razorace
It's pretty obvious that the statements were meant to be taken figuratively to make a point. There's also the "threat" that the moon might suddenly crash into Earth and "bring sudden terror and suffering to America" but it doesn't mean that we're going to declare war on the moon. In addition, he makes no comment in terms of timeframe or what he defines "confront" as.

Actually there is very little threat from the Moon as compared to N. Korea. It's orbit is stable and the tides created by its gravity predictable. The point I was making was two-fold: first, that Bush did, indeed, make comments regarding Iraq which were immediately punctuated by a reminder of 9/11; and, second, to show that we've set precedent that we cannot hope to live up to.

There are many equal, even more significant, threats in the world than Iraq that can affect the United States. If we do not act on each or at least many of them, we prove that our intentions were not as we stated. If we do act on each or even some of these threats, we will spend ourselves to death in defense budget and servicemember lives.

Originally posted by razorace
Clarify "good" evidence,

The kind that exists due to tested hypotheses and verifiable facts, not spurious anecdotes.

Originally posted by razorace
Sure, he's Palestinian, but what does that have to do with anything? A terrorist is a terrorist. You can't just say, "Oh, he's a Palestinian so he's not really a terrorist."

He wasn't Al-Queda. He was (from the Muslim perspective) a rewarded "Freedom Fighter." Al-Queda has targeted the United States, among other western countries & interests. The PLF targeted the occupying force in Palestine, Israel. Their motivation for the Achille Lauro takeover was to free some PLF prisoners in Israel. Terrorists to be sure, but not the same bunch we want.

Originally posted by razorace
They did make a big deal out of the mobile labs in the presentation they made to Congress on the progress in the search for WMDs. However, everyone that's on the anti-war track just brushed it off because the labs (like most things in life) had potential non-violent uses.

That is a fact. In his October 2, 2003 briefing to the U.S. Senate, David Kay stated the following:

Q Are you convinced that that the two mobile labs were weapons labs?

MR. KAY: The mobile lab program, as you'll see when you look at the unclassified summary of the statement, is still something that's very much being examined. It was equally unsuitable for biological weapons, hydrogen, as well as rocket fuel regeneration. That is, it could have done either of those three; it would have done all of them almost equally unsuitable. We simply are continuing our investigation.


Interestingly enough, Kay chose the word "unsuitable."

Source is the Federal News Service Transcripts On-line (http://www.fnsg.com/search.htm?op=s&newsearch=on&allrealm=on&query=david+kay), found via Lexis-Nexis (use search parameters "David Kay," sort by date, then choose item # 88.

Originally posted by razorace
Of the evidence that has been shown so far, we've seen that Saddam had been hiding components specifically required to create new biological and nuclear weapons (uraninum refinery parts, virus cultures, etc).

The former could also be used for nuclear energy, but it's a moot point. I fully expect that the former Iraqi government did hide whatever they could for future use. What government wouldn't? I don't believe the latter, however. Not for bioweapons purposes at any rate. The reason is that these types of cultures are difficult to maintain, particularly if one wishes to keep them discrete. I do expect that the technology to process them as well as the data necessary for it would be stored... again, what government wouldn't?

Originally posted by razorace
We just haven't found actual weapons grade WMDs yet.

And this brings us full circle to the meat of the argument. Until now, we've been bickering over the little crap, but overlooking the big sh**.

There is no real evidence of WMDs in over a year of inspection and occupation. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The Bush admin's reasons for going to war with Iraq hinged on these reasons, not the potentially valid ones of human rights violations.

Hussein is caught. But it has absolutely no bearing on American safety beyond, perhaps, the quicker withdraw of American troops from Iraq.

Hussein's a bad guy and deserves whatever fate awaits him. But that's an Iraqi victory... not an American one.

obi
12-19-2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by razorace
Anyway, it's getting way too serious in here.

Agreed.

Can you guys debate here: http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119782


Thats the Senate Chambers, and it's normally used for serious discussion(for those who weren't aware). The swamp is for layed back, relaxed threads.

toms
12-19-2003, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by SkinWalker
Hussein's a bad guy and deserves whatever fate awaits him. But that's an Iraqi victory... not an American one.

Thats what I said. :D THis war was a good one for the people of iraq, but a pretty bad one for the rest of the world.

I still can't believe that after all this there is still NO talk in american politics of actually attempting to solve the biggest threat to the US, which is the continuing Israel/Palestine conflict.
There is a reason that both Saddam (a secular leader who didn't like extreme religious beliefs and didn't get on with the rest of the Arab world) and a lot of people in Saudi Arabia (our allies) and in Iran (a religious state the opposite of iraq) and Osama Bin Ladin (US trained anti russian) all support palestinian "freedom fighters" even though they probably couldn't agree on a single other thing.

While US presidents keep backing off this issue every time it gets close to an election there is little to no hope of the US ever being safe from terrorists. Although, ironically perhaps, about the only terrorists in the world who ARENT going after the US are the ones from palestine that Saddam was supporting.

toms
12-19-2003, 11:49 AM
various comments from the Independent newspaper today:

"David Kay, the CIA advisor who headed the US-led hunt for WMD, is to quit, before submitting his assessment to the US President in February."

"Fewer than 40 of the 14,00 inspectors are still in the field"

George Bush: "So what's the difference [if he has WMD]? If he were to aquire weapons, he would be the danger"

Of course, the independent is a slightly left wing paper, but it does seem that they are trying to shift the focus away from WMD (and pretty much giving up the hunt for them) to concentrate on Saddam himself being a bad guy and preventing attacks on US soldiers.

SkinWalker
12-19-2003, 01:52 PM
Hey Obi... if you want to move the thread to the Senate, I'll merge it with the other one...

LeXX started to move it, but then noticed the Senate already had one....

Anyways... just so you know, I only got into debate mode after I saw it in the Senate. After I hit "submit," I ended up back in the Swamp (LeXX moved it back ;) )

El Sitherino
12-19-2003, 05:43 PM
*pulls out senate thread merge sign*
perhaps we should just merge the debate part to the existing thread. :)

obi
12-19-2003, 08:56 PM
I don't think Rhett intended for this to turn into a debate, but since it did, I'll make a copy of this thread into the senate, and keep this one here, so Mr. Skinwalker can merge it with the other Saddam thread, which I think is a better Idea.