Saddam Hussein captured!

[Lathain Valtiel]

Actually, Osama has been spotted in Iran.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

Erm... Just how did that invalidate my point? Oh, right. It didn't. (You forget that Iraq showed images of two American POWs.. heh.). As for the cold war.. What on EARTH does that have to do with international law? Neither side gave a damn about international law except when it suited them (Vetoes in Security Council), fingers were on the buttons to launch missiles quite often. Think before you speak.

 

So... Just how is it an accident that civillans get blown up by suicide bombers again?

yes, but the USSR nor the US pushed the buttons because international law, and because it would mean certain doom.

 

And I was saying if Saddam got hit by a suicide bomber it would be an accident because their targets are civilians not politicians. Iraq broke the geneva convention and I'm not going to disagree there because they broke it and they have to face consequences, though the people responsible are most likely dead.

 

Any treaty signed stating two or more forces will not attack one another becomes international law, more or less. Because once you break the treaty it's classified as a war-crime.

[XERXES]

Link?

 

 

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

[Lathain Valtiel]

More because it would mean doom. I mean seriously, every major country breaks international law, yet they tout it when it's in their favor. The US included.

 

..So let me get this straight. If I found out my number one enemy was going to use nukes on me without a shadow of a doubt in 15 minutes and I bomb the facility to hell and back before it happens, i'm a war criminal if we both signed a treaty. Brilliant.

[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.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

More because it would mean doom. I mean seriously, every major country breaks international law, yet they tout it when it's in their favor. The US included.

 

Which, in itself, doesn't indicate that International Laws should be done away with, but rather that the consequences for violating them should be reformed. I've seen some ideas on this that were both good and bad and I have a few of my own, but perhaps that's another thread.....

 

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

If I found out my number one enemy was going to use nukes on me without a shadow of a doubt in 15 minutes and I bomb the facility to hell and back before it happens, i'm a war criminal if we both signed a treaty. Brilliant.

 

Not at all. You were defending yourself. But if you fund terrorists in a developing nation which lead to the deaths of 30,000 people (innocent civilians for the most part: men, women, & children) I think that might qualify you as a war criminal. Would you agree?

[Lathain Valtiel]

Which US debacle were you referring to? Iran-Contra?

[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.

[SkinWalker]

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]

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

 

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

link 1

link 2

link 3

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]

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]

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]

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.