Saddam Captured

[razorace]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[El Sitherino]

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]

BOO! To the senate where all the boring political threads go

[XERXES]

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]

Actually, Osama has been spotted in Iran.

[XERXES]

Link?

 

 

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

[ET Warrior]

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]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

I remember Napoleon. Do you remember Waterloo? 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.

[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.

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ).

[Breton]

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]

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.