Saddam Captured

[razorace]

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]

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.

[XERXES]

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.

 

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]

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]

 

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

[Surfnshannon]

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]

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]

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. ^_^

 

 

[kmd]

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]

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]

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.

 

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™]

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]

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]

Without war, there can be no peace.

[Rad Blackrose]

Peace can only be attained through the barrel of a smoking gun.

[El Sitherino]

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]

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]

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

[razorace]

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

 

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

[kmd]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.