Preserved Topic: Saddam Captured?

It seems as if Saddam might be caught:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/14/sprj.irq.main/index.html

And to think I've never imagined Saddam as a fun-loving, festive type.
Now I stand corrected, since he apparently was arrested wearing a false beard, all in christmas spirit.
"Ho Ho Ho! Here's Saddam Clause!"



[This message has been edited by Nimraw (edited 12-14-2003).]

Now all we have to find is Osama and the WMDs, and it'll all be good.

Good news for the people of Iraq - they do need some good news at the moment.

Hopefully it means they'll be able to grow a more stable country.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

I wonder how they figured out his hiding place though...after all this time and they didn't figure out Osama's place.

--
Regards,
Elias

But the war wont stop, at least, some soldiers may go back to America after this in my opinion.

This is very welcome news!!! I share Emps sentiment that this will mean we are one step closer to a better tomorrow for Iraqis. I think we can all agree to that. Now I have to go and get the details as I have just gotten up from less than 4 hours of sleep.

. . : slicePuzzle

lallous: I guess, it's because Saddam was hated by his people ( add to that the reward of US$ 25.000.000 ) which is not really the case for Osama. I hope the people of Iraq will be safe now.

Oh, and with the capture of Saddam, Georges W. will probably be able to finally show us the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction for which he engaged the war.

Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI

Good news.

They should hypnotise him. Or drug him. Get all the answers. Then flay him.

__________________
War is Peace,
Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength.

[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 12-14-2003).]

From the other thread about this (in P&S):

Rayquazza:

quote:

---

Anyone have any opinions on what should be done now with him?

---

Rauthrin:

quote:

---

I wouldn't be against putting him alone with a few firemen from NYC for an hour...

---

That`s what the FOX News can do to a person...

Rauthrin:

quote:

---

I wouldn't be against putting him alone with a few firemen from NYC for an hour...

---

What !? Do you really believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the WTC attack ? You must have been brainswashed or something like that.

Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI

quote:

---

That`s what the FOX News can do to a person...

---

heh *shakes his head and walks away*

Hey guys! Can you believe that Saddam was captured on my birthday?!WOW!! Happy birthday to me huh?

Thats the best B-day present I ever had!

Remember, Ruski, a military dictator isn't just for Christmas -- it's for life. Are you ready for such a big responsibility? You have to remember to feed him every day, and play with him, and change the water in his tank.

Cell 1250 :: alanmacdougall.com :: Illustrator tips

Ruski: They also seem to make a terrible mess terrible mess of their backyard and they will start fights with the other kid's dictators.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Now if someone will only capture the dictator that has taken over the USA, we'll be in good hands.

It still amazes me that people can get excited about this kind of thing. I keep thinking that maybe American's aren't falling for the blatant propaganda like they would like, but that's usually not the case. Oh well, any student of history will tell you that we're in for a major fall; no empire lasts forever.


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

.... ^ what?

before I blew the candles out today, I wished to get a piece of Saddam's beard!

quote:

---

.... ^ what?

---

The short version, just to recap if you've missed the last couple years of ... uhm.. everything.
America has been taken over by a militant dictatorship bent on power at the expense of it's constituancy and the rest of the world. The entirety of the Iraq war is a sabre-rattling propaganda B.S. They won't be any better off either, as they've been sold to Halliburton and their ilk to be raped as the American populace has been.

The point about empires is that most dictatorships fall. If you compare any militant dictatorship in history to the current one, you will see obvious parallels. Since history unerringly repeats itself, America is in for a comeupance due to it's own bloated ego. Look what happened to the Roman empire, the British empire, the Nazi regime, etc. All things come around... if we're alive as a species that long.


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

Try to contain your disappointment that this particular dictator will finally see some justice. If you have a problem with Bush, then exercise your right to vote come November, a right that the Iraqis can scarce remember I'm sure.

ah, I see.

I thought you were comparing America to Iraq, and you were.

carry on!

[This message has been edited by eyezaer (edited 12-15-2003).]

Well, I for one, am glad he has been found and captured!! As Emps said, and Bugs supported, I also hope that this may help things in Iraq to become better for the Iraqi's...they have suffered enough, especially at the hands of Saddam. At least this part is now finally over. Time to put this remenant of the past to rest, and get on to the future of Iraq.

quote:

---

If you have a problem with Bush, then exercise your right to vote come November, a right that the Iraqis can scarce remember I'm sure.

---

Nor Americans unfortunately...

quote:

---

I also hope that this may help things in Iraq to become better for the Iraqi's...they have suffered enough

---

I sincerely hope so. I don't expect it, but I hope so. Always makes me think of a quote (author unknown) "If you add a drop of wine to sewage, you have sewage. If you add a drop of sewage to wine, you have sewage." Only takes a few to ruin life for many. ... I think we've all suffered enough.


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

quote:

---

I think we've all suffered enough.

---

Yes, from comments like these.

quote:

---

America is in for a comeupance due to it's own bloated ego.

---

Again

quote:

---

That`s what the FOX News can do to a person...

---

And again.

quote:

---

Nor Americans unfortunately...

---

Yet again....hmm, just full of one-liners aren't we.

Regardless of why we went to Iraq, I do think it was long overdue. I guess the right thing would be to just let Saddam stay in power and continue to murder his people. This is good for the people of Iraq, and regardless of motivation, was a good move by Bush.

That's what CNN and the liberal media can do to a person. If this mentality had been around in WWII we'd all be hailing the Furher today.

Ramasax: It's obvious that the definitive fall of Saddam is a good thing, but I can't help thinking it was not the role of a single ( ok, two ) country but of the United Nations. In the UN, like in every democracy, many voices expresses their opinion and this time the USA, UK and co. let the canons speak louder than internationnal laws and Saddam's dictatorship ( I'm not stupid enough to not recognize the good aspect of the thing ). I hope, that the next time the USA would like to kick a dictator they'll act with the UN and their approval.

During WWII, there was no UN and all the necessary rules going with it, the nations behaved only in their own name. But that was 60years ago, the time have changed.

Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI

So we did the right thing then, just bypassed a few more months of useless diplomacy. Might have even saved a few lives. What's the problem? War was inevitable here, diplomacy has no use in dealing with the mentally ill.

If I were you, I'd be glad the US/UK took care of this, because now it's our tax money and blood, and you get to keep yours. Again, what's the problem? Our soldiers are giving their lives to make the world a better place for everyone, yet we're the bad guys now? Times have changed indeed.

And you knew he had to have a view on this:
www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2003-12-14

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Let me first make clear that I, too am happy to hear Saddam has been captured. I`d really like to see him brought to justice, preferrably before an Iraqi court.


Ramasax:

MY one liner referred to the fact that Rauthrin seemed to assume Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks - Which I see as a result of misleading propaganda.


[edit]Just read Micheal Moore's comment - not surprisingly, I agree with it, which could be because he's just summing up some well-known facts. I especiall liked the Photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam.[/edit]

[This message has been edited by MW (edited 12-15-2003).]

1.

quote:

---

That`s what the FOX News can do to a person...

---

2.

quote:

---

MY one liner referred to the fact that Rauthrin seemed to assume Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks - Which I see as a result of misleading propaganda.

---

3.

quote:

---

What !? Do you really believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the WTC attack ? You must have been brainswashed or something like that.

---

1.No, I don't watch FOX news, nor do I visit the website.

2.No, i just think that it would be funny to see him get the crap beat out of him by those who are brainwashed.

3.See above answer.

PS: Micheal Moore is right

[This message has been edited by Rauthrin (edited 12-15-2003).]

I must say that this has got be about the most ridiculous thread I've seen here so far.

I'd enjoy discussin gthe issue, but I'm afraid there are too many issues in thsi thread to pick from.

I will say that, regardless of any of the other issues surrounding the circumstances, Saddam being removed form power is the best thing to happen for the Iraqi people in many decades.

And while the US government has it's problems, comparing it with the brutal dicatatorships taht have existed is just plain ignorant.

To compare the condition of the American people to that of the Iraqi people is both ignorant and distastful, and it belittles the suffering that has happened in Iraq for decades.

Of course, making any connection between Saddam and firefigthers is so absurd I'm speechless on that one...

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 12-15-2003).]

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 12-15-2003).]

Rauthrin:

Oh, I see
I would prefer to have the Iraqis themselves beat the crap out of Saddam, though.

Michael Moore... bless his heart. He can rattle on endlessly about what happened decades leading up to the capture of Hussein and some of what he says is accurate but much of it is probably overstated or certainly mischaracterized. But nothing that he is saying addresses the problem as it stands right now. Even if one agreed that Hussein was completely created by the US, that would still mean it was a good thing that this "Frankenstein" is now subdued. Even if the US is the biggest worst most terrible dictatorship on the planet, Hussein being toppled is still a positive step. But good old Mike has not one word of good will to speak to the Iraqis who are celebrating this monster's capture. I honestly wonder whether good old Mike wants a better day for Iraq. I honestly wonder if he would like to see it all go to hell so he could say he was right. For his sake, I hope even he is not that hateful deep inside.

. . : slicePuzzle

quote:

---

I honestly wonder if he would like to see it all go to hell so he could say he was right

---

That seems to be the way people like him go.

I was glad to hear that they had captured Saddam... the information I got from the telly says that they narrowed his hiding place down using info extracted from some detainees... It's all propaganda - so who's to say exactly what tipped them off to his hidey-hole. (I dunno - that beard looked real enough to me!)

I was even happier to hear that they got him alive, and (so they say) no shots fired.

I'm a little disappointed that Dubya is likely gonna take the credit for the whole shebang... it will make a nice feather in his presidential cap (And I do plan on exercising my right to vote next November... for whoever is running against him).

Here's hoping the remaining belligerent Iraqis will find this cause enough to settle down to the business of getting on with their lives, as opposed to giving them up for a dead cause. It doesn't guarantee an end to hostilities, but it is a step in the right direction. Anything positive in this conflict is a blessing.

And as someone said above, if they could just get hold of Osama and those elusive WMDs, we'd be set!


Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 12-15-2003).]

For most of you, me telling you what I think of this situation is redundant.
For the sake of others, I'll do this quickly.

Saddam Hussein is, was, and probably will be forever a brutal monster, a feckless thug, a creature not worthy of the flesh in which he exists. That Hussein is no longer free is perhaps the best news, for Iraqis and all citizens of the world, in a long time.
The United States, through its elected and appointed representatives, have been and still are, in a large part, responsible for the creation and maintenance of many of the world's most dangerous thugs and dictators. Saddam Hussein is most definately a part of that list.

Now, I have a question for Mr. Bugimus (Hi there, bugs. Long time no talk. We should email more often.)

It is common practice among conservatives to label anybody who brings up US responsibility for the creation or maintenance of thuggish creatures as, at best, non-patriotic, and, at worst, apologists for those thugs. (Liberals, too, are often guilty of their own brand of name-calling...)
You (and others) routinely blast Michael Moore (and others) for expressing the view that the US carries some (often a lot) of the responsibility for the actions of such beasts.
I think when Moore wrote

quote:

---

Maybe we never would have been in the situation we're in if Rumsfeld, Bush, Sr., and company hadn't been so excited back in the 80s about their friendly monster in the desert.

---

he wasn't far from the mark. That is a legitimate statement. Perhaps we (that includes the Iraqis) wouldn't have been in such a predicament.
Is it not OK to bring up the past in order to learn from it? to show coorelations to situations today? to try to avoid such problems in the future?

What is the appropriate way to show distaste for US support of such dictators?
How can Michael Moore, or I, express our desire for the US to get out of the ruthless thug business, without being labeled an apologist?

Rauthrin: Sorry, your statement was picked out of its context thus my reaction.

Ramasax: The fact that this war is your money, blood, soldiers ... does not make me happier than if it were those of the whole United Nations. The USA and UK are the "bad guys" in that that they are apart of the UN and don't accept its rules that would have undoubtly led to an intervention of the whole UN. Of course it would have taken few months but in the end Saddam would have still tried to fool the UN inspectors, a military intervention would have been granted and the soldiers of all the countries of UN ( and probably those of the NATO too ) would have been involved. That way the democracy would have defeated a dictatorship. And I think that an intervention of the UN would have been understood by many people around the world and would have brought less terrorist acts against the troops.

Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI

mobrul, good to hear from you!

The name calling game is done on both sides, I agree. I usually don't like it because it skirts the actual issue being raised. I do try to focus on the subject and only do the name calling for my own amusement and I usually reserve it for people who ask for it. One of these people is Michael Moore. In my mind, he is the left wing equivalent to Robert Dornan or conservative talk show host Mike Gallagher.

Have you ever noticed that I don't blast you when you express similar opinions? I believe, to the core of my being, that you value truth and attempt to come to sound political conclusions based on the most facts you can find. I like to think that is the way work my way through this life as well. But I also strongly suspect that Michael Moore is much less concerned with truth because he is driven by his intense idealogical political agenda. People with strong agendas will always be tempted, even if they never give in, to bend facts to fit their end goals.

Another reason I dislike Moore is because he doesn't back up his own information. He doesn't visit the talk shows that will ask him the hard questions. I have posted this in other threads but Larry Elder has an open invitation for Michael Moore to come on his show and have it out. I would love to see him on Bill O'Reilley's show too. Not because Bill is some right wing savior (he's actually a populist from my estimation) but because Bill tears into people with hard questions. I want to see him take that kind of abuse and see how his positions stack up against it.

If he wants people to take him seriously then he needs to earn some credibility and respect for his opinions. Again notice how I don't say anything like this about you. You have always been more than willing to lay out your positions honestly and backed up with sources. You defend your positions with clear logical arguments and to date (at least that I've seen) have listened to opposing opinions without resorting to name calling and other useless tangents.

So let's say Moore were to come on this board right now and want to seriously talk the issues. I would give him a listen and a fair shake as I try to do with all. Sometimes I poke and try to push people's buttons in order to goad them into some real dialogue. I suppose since I see him as such a worm not willing to stand behind his positions that this more than justifies be blasting him at every chance I get. It has much less to do with his opinions and much more about how I percieve his character and integrity... or in this case the lack thereof.


I will be honest with you that I do not speak for "conservatives" and how they regard others. I don't think there is anything you can do to stop many from labelling you a "self-hating American" or other related names. I wouldn't worry about it, frankly. I take a lot of grief for believing in Christ but I know that just comes with the territory. I would continue to focus on the facts and do your best to come to sound logical conclusions and let the chips fall where they may.

Some may wonder how people like you and I can both believe we are operating from facts and using decent logic yet come to such different conclusions. It is because we both have different world views. Our assumptions about life, human nature, morality, ethics, differ in significant ways. Once that is recognized, it's really quite absurd to think we would end up in the same place. I would like to believe that it is our love of the search for truth is where we can claim a common bond.

So about getting out of the thug business. I say when that is the best choice out of several choices that all lead to the suffering, you shouldn't be out of the thug business. Here are the options I see:

1) sit back and do nothing and let suffering abound
2) help out your own interests by backing a thug
3) hurt your own interests by allowing the other thugs to be supported by someone else
4) invade and force everyone to idolize Jefferson or die (ok it's overstated but this option requires imposing your culture on others)

I would prefer the 5th choice but that would require that every American live according to a higher standard. This is something I've dedicated my life to but it is not something I can force on anyone. So I left to support one of the 4 above, all of which aren't too pleasant. I think we as a country have done just about all of these at one time or another.

That was kind of long. I didn't intend it to be but I won't be able to get back to this thread for a while so I needed to get that out.

. . : slicePuzzle

Poi: I totally disagree with you when you say that waiting for the UN would have cut down on terrorist attacks against troops. Considering their "religious" motivations, and that all non-believers are considered the enemy, it would only have postponed the attacks, and if anything given the terrorist organizations more time to prepare.

So we're the bad guys? That is fine with me. To me, it is better to act against the general concensus, than to wait and let the inhumane acts continue, which would you choose? I guess you've already made that clear.

The whole position of the UN on the matter was to "Let the inspections work." We tried that, it didn't work. Somebody had to have to balls to take the next step, a step that was undoubtedly unavoidable. If that means ruffling a few feathers to save lives and bring the world one step closer to "peace," fine with me once more.

Well, most of the points that I would have made were made, in general.

Bugimus - Moore and many in his vein of philosophy have been willing and have gone on to talk to people like O'Reily. So saying that they are afraid is just silly. O'Reily is a world class nutcase, right up there with Ann Coulter for first on the list for the straight jacket. You should read Al Franken's book talking about his experiences with them, entertaining at the very least if you follow their works.

Ramasax said:

quote:

---

The whole position of the UN on the matter was to "Let the inspections work." We tried that, it didn't work. Somebody had to have to balls to take the next step, a step that was undoubtedly unavoidable. If that means ruffling a few feathers to save lives and bring the world one step closer to "peace," fine with me once more.

---

Yup. We had the "balls" to go do it. And boy did we show the UN. We found all those WMD... well.. no we didn't do that. But we found the culprits for the 9/11 attack! no... we didn't do that either... in fact we couldn't even find any evidence linking the two. Well... we freed some Bush owned oil property and helped that poor dying company Haliburton so Dick Cheney wouldn't go hungry. That at least is something to feel proud of. Take that world! As for WWII. Hitler was actively invading europe.. but it took the Japanese attacking the US to really spur us into action. If you really want to draw some similarities, look at what is happening now. We are sanctioning the attacks of the Israelies against the Palastinians just as we sanctioned the attacks of Iraq against Iran and just as we sanctioned the attacks of Bin Laden against the USSR. Deposing a viscious dictator is not something I have a problem with. But fueling a fight and bouncing around sides for the ruling class to financially and politicallly position themselves I do. My original point was also that we are eating up the news that they feed us. They throw little bones of patriotism out to the masses to steer them away from issues of importance that don't meet their agenda. "We captured Sadam...*whisper*oh yeah and we're taking your rights and blowing the economy to a record low*whisper*". If you read anything about the tactics and politicaly governing of the nazi's, that was one of their ideas. I'm sure it went further back than that, but it's a very easy corilary since they actually wrote about it in their masifesto.


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

I don't really have much to add to all these discussions. As I've said before I try to stay out of most of this. I do have opinions but Bugimus and Ramasax have between them pretty much said what I would have tried to. I'll be voting for Bush this time around, but I hope Lieberman runs in five years because I really like him. He's honest and is truly interested in what he feels will be best for the country. I just don't want Bush and his people to be out of power before the job gets done.


It's pronounced "Spikes!"

Ramasax: You clearly understood the position of the UN. The inspections were supposed to find the so called WMD, and that's the reason why the USA and UK started the war, not to remove a dictator. The inspection found no WMD. Now, ~10 months after the beginning of that war, how many WMD have been found ? The removal of Saddam is a f..ing great side effect of the war, but it was not its purpose.

When I said that I think an intervention of the UN would have lowered the number of terrorist acts against the troops, I think to the fact that the UN is made of 191 countries including some muslim ones. Ok, Osama's and Saddam's fellows don't mind to strike anybody but they'll never be able to fight all the UN. And a vote for a military intervention of the UN to remove Saddam and free the Iraqi people would have certainly had an impact on the mentality of the muslim community who sometimes support the terrorist acts.

[edit] I agree with most of the points exposed by MindBender [/edit]

Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI

[This message has been edited by poi (edited 12-16-2003).]

Okay... I'm dipping my toes into this quagmire, simply because I have not stated my positions in previous posts... First off, I believe the capture of Saddam is in line with the goals put forth at the inception of this war. Ever since 1991, the US and the UK have resisted the lifting of sanctions on Iraq until Saddam Hussein was removed from power. It didn't matter how it happened, he just needed to be out of the picture. Was this the only goal? Of course not. It wasn't even the primary goal. With regards to backing by the UN before going in and removing Hussein from power, how long was the US/UK supposed to wait? Ever since Hussein kicked the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq, he has shown how much regard he has had for their authority. The WMD thing has been a game to him. As soon as the threat of military force was implied, he would make a token showing of destroying some weapons, let a couple inspectors in on his own terms and then turn around and kick them out again. I lost count how many times that happened. At the beginning, it really bothered me that the US and UK were going in without UN support. I worried about the diplomatic future of the country and watched what was left of US foreign policy crumble. However the more I thought about it, the more I could understand some of the reasoning behind it. How long would the US have to wait for "diplomacy" to work? "Diplomacy" that was causing millions of Iraqis to suffer because of the actions of their leader. Sanctions set forth by the UN, and backed by the US, were causing pain to a people that Hussein couldn't have cared less about. The sanctions weren't working. Oil for Food wasn't working. Continued talking and negotiations were not going to help either.

And we come around to the question of where are the WMD? That's a really good question. I don't believe they have all been destroyed. These are weapons both the US and the UN knew to exist. Why on earth would the UN insist on additional inspections if they believed they were all destroyed as Saddam Hussein claimed? Why? Because the UN knows they weren't all destroyed.

I wish the US & UK had been able to go in with the UN's blessing. Hussein was not a man that would have voluntarily stepped down from power. He had been threatened time and again with military repercussions for not meeting UN demands. Not once was that threat ever made good on. The UN was not a threat to him. How long was the UN going to sit and play Hussein's game and sit on their hands?

I know from the following statements I am going to be called brainwashed among other things, but I'm going to say them any way. I believe that ultimately, whether we find WMD or not, going to war when we did was the right thing to do. There just comes a time when diplomacy fails. That is all war is, failed diplomacy. It is troubling to wake up and read the news about how many countries hate the US for what it has done this year. To say that the soldiers who are dying are doing it only for greedy Bush's oil interests... it mocks the sacrifices they are making. These aren't just US soldiers that are dying, many from the UK have died as well. I don't deny that there are financial gains to be made, but that is the outcome of any war not just this one alone. Do I believe that Bush has made all the right choices for all the right reasons? No, I don't but I believe the ultimate good that will come out of this overshadows many of the toes that were stepped on along the way.

quote:

---

I would love to see him on Bill O'Reilley's show too.

---

He was on O'Reilley's show, Feb. 19, 2002.

Also, for those interisted, look here at the number 4 and 7 best sellers.

[This message has been edited by Rauthrin (edited 12-16-2003).]

O'Reilly's book was number one at one point wasn't it?

Edit: Never mind, it still is. http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/bestseller/

[This message has been edited by SPyX (edited 12-16-2003).]

quote:

---

I wonder how they figured out his hiding place though...after all this time and they didn't figure out Osama's place.

---

maybe that's because Saddam's dumber than Osama. If I were him, I'd rather die than get caught and be humiliated by these militaries.

Interesting article:
www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1107732,00.html

quote:

---

Nebuchadnezzar, a predecessor of Saddam's, was a favourite target for the men who wrote the Bible. He also appears in Isaiah as the model of the fallen tyrant. "They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, 'Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; that made the world as a wilderness and destroyed the cities thereof?'" The chapter goes on to ask, "Art thou also become weak as we? Art thou become like unto us?"

In Tikrit yesterday this was rather well expressed by an American officer. A small crowd had gathered to demonstrate support for the captured dictator. "Saddam is our hearts!" they shouted, "Saddam is in our blood!" To which the American apparently quietly replied, "Saddam is in our jail!"

---

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Yannah: Saddam will probably enjoy being questionned about his WMD and all his arsenal. He'll certainly have some fun trying to embarass the many countries who sold him some weapons.

Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI

Well you knew it had to happen:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2972666804&category=324

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

You do, of course, have some valid points that I won't deny, and have said myself.

However, I must reiterate, no matter *how* you look at it, Saddam being removed from power is a *great* thing for Iraq.

Period.

And of course, another very important point: George Bush does not have the power to do this on his own. He has a whole adminstartion full of people who are a part of this, and the senate approval that is needed to do such things, etc...

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

quote:

---

You do have two valid points, but this makes me sick.

---

DL making two valid points in one post is enough to make me queasy

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Runs by to say something, but I slipped on Emp's throw-up and landed in Ini's.

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Then you had better lock up over half of the US and British population too since they have consistently felt this war was the right thing to do.

InI, you do have *some* valid points but your hyperbole (it was hyperbole wasn't it?) undermines your persuasiveness. I mean, I tend to tune out people who seem to be reading from a leftist talking points memo rather. Umm... that goes for those reading from right wing memos too.

Do you really believe all the things you said above or was some or most of that just blowing off some steam?

[edit] Rauthrin, you are right. He has appeared on Bill's show and that is a good thing. Do you know whether or not he has addressed the Iraq issue? Feb 2002 was too early for that. I recall now he was talking to Bill about taxes and such saying how we should be paying 70% of our incomes to the government. I would still love to hear hime on the Larry Elder program to address the inaccurate info contained in his bowling for Columbine movie concerning guns. Here's a link to Larry's invitation, scroll down to the "Michael Moore Where Are You?" section and it explains a bit more where Larry's coming from.

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 12-16-2003).]

no matter what, the USA is always the bad guy. we're fucked, regardless what we do. there's no shortage of people who'll gladly bitch about how awful we are and how whatever we happen to be doing at the moment is wrong, but those same people have no problems stickin their grubbly lil hands out when they want our help. there's not one 'saintly' government on the planet and while my government may not be the best....it's by FAR not the worst. it could be better...but so could the rest of them.

i feel that a majority of the reasons we went to iraq in the first place is horseshit but, i do feel it needed to be done. saddam needed to be removed. though, my reasons for him needing to be removed and those of my government, i'm sure are different.
as michael moore said in that article, we know he had wmd because we gave them to him. i completely believe that! i'd like them to be found, but i don't think it really matters at this point. not finding any wmd isn't going to change a damn thing that's been done. now that saddam's been removed i hope things improve for the people of iraq.

as for michael moore... while he physcially makes me ill and i can't stand the sound of his voice, he does have valid points. it's just that those points have been made so many times now that it's kinda like beating a dead horse.

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

The thing about his points, many of which have been echoed eloquently here by our members, is that I do accept the ones that are factual but I ask the question "so then what?". How many have done that? How would each of the loudest critics of these things done it differently? Were there good reasons for supporting Hussein in the Iran/Iraq war?

It's so easy to criticize and so very difficult to actually do anything in this world. More solutions and less hand wringing is what I want to hear from the Left please. I am not referring to all here on the left because there are a few who have risen to this challenge and have made very good arguments for alternative actions. But if you're going to sit there and criticize what we're going then you had better have a BETTER idea to replace it with. Because if you don't then I can virtually guarantee that worse things will happen by sitting on your asses and letting it all go to hell.

Should we follow the lead of how the Europeans so adeptly handled the Balkan atrocities? Do nothing, do nothing, do nothing, oh crap the Americans are doing something. Bastards!!! Oh, now the atrocities have ended and the evil Americans have saved a Muslim population from ethnic cleansing from a Christian population, cool beans. I know that is very turse and silly but is it really that far off?

[edit]
InI, we posted almost at the same time. I want to respond in detail to your points after I've read all clearly but let me say that my initial reaction to your position is that all your questions are completely relative. There is no moral anchor to your view, it is a though you have pulled every nation out of a hat without regard to history or action and treated them as perfect equals. Now God may see it that way but when you are discussing the legitimate exercise of human governments operating in this fallen world, distinctions MUST be drawn.
[/edit]

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 12-16-2003).]

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Bugs:

quote:

---

Then you had better lock up over half of the US and British population too since they have consistently felt this war was the right thing to do.

---

Make it three quarters, for good measure, and you've got a deal

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

**Quietly thinking... Maybe it is good that I do not express my political opinions on here too much.**

Ah... Wolfen! Let your ideals fly! We're all in trouble sooner or later. Might as well have fun first.

quote:

---

Why didn't they do a thing? Why in Iraq?

---

My guess would be because stablity in Iraq has a global impact and stability in Rwanda does not. You argue in terms of social equitability... why? Governments don't work in social arenas. They work in a political arena as it relates to themselves. At this point it is a planetwide arena that can only be dealt with in terms of "it affects my country," or, "It doesn't affect my country." Not the best way of dealing with things but it is the only thing one country can do. Where was the US? Where the hell was everyone else? We step in when we have to... We even step in when we don't have to. We have money, yes, but it isn't limitless. You want things to get done... HELP! Everyone gets down on the US because we're out there doing so much stuff. You want us to do less, do more yourself.

That's mostly rant, not directly pointed at you, InI, you just set me off. We can't be responsible when we do something and responsible when we don't. How many people would be bitching if we had sat on our asses waiting for UN authorization and were attacked again or someone else was attacked? Why keep claiming that WMD don't exist and then accuse the US of giving WMD to Saddam? Where did it go if we gave it to him? Isn't the US allowed to fix it's own mistakes? There are some ridiculous inequities on both sides of this argument and I don't think anyone is looking at it very realistically.

I may regret making a comment at this point in the discussion... but here goes:

*steps up on soapbox...*

While I don't agree with Mr. Bush's policies, and don't want him in office, I do agree that given the situation at the time, he did what he and our government felt was right. You can't expect a country of however many billion we are to all agree with him about what exactly was "right".

Change, however it comes, to whomever it comes, is painful. There is no easy way to make serious changes. Bring it down to the microcosm... the individual relationship... You go along, day after day, doing your own thing... thinking your own thoughts... doing what feels good and right for you... Then BLAM! One day, someone important in your life pipes up that what you're doing affects them badly, and in order to keep the relationship, you must change. In order to get things running smoothly again, there has to be a compromise made somewhere. Getting a person to accept the compromise is a different issue entirely. In my experience, there's an awful lot of screaming and crying before the compromise is reached. Sound familiar?

Same with governments. In this case, The UN wanted Iraq to hand over a sufficient number of wmds so that it could say it had done it's job. Saddam didn't want that... no compromise there... The UN and the US both tried various and sundry means of compromise with Saddam. To no avail. Well, going back and forth the way we all were obviously wasn't doing any good. Someone's hand had to be forced. Better the US force Saddam to step down (one way or another) than for Saddam to force the world to bend to his will. Make sense?

Governments are only human, and they can only function as such. We expect way too much of the people we have in power. They can only work with what they have to work with, same as anyone else.

No, I don't like the war. I don't like the fact that the US has become the anathema to the whole world. But someone's got to look the bad guy, and I'd rather it was us, and not some crazy a**hole with genocidal tendencies.

That's my straight up opinion on the matter. Based solely on my observations of the issue through the various available sources on information. Probably all propaganda, but we haven't got much else to go on.

*steps off soapbox...*
edit: spelling... damn new fingers!

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 12-16-2003).]

InI's mention about sustaining a rebellion reminds me of the first Gulf War... Saddam really had some weapons at that time, and a rebellion was spawning. But leaving Saddam in place, let him use his weapons against the rebellion and put an oil for food plan was more important than supporting the rebellion and thus removing him.

Whatever, the USA and UK lied to the whole world to do that war. Where are Saddam's stocks of Anthrax, biological weapons, WMD, ... . Georges W. only does what HE wants and don't bother about internationnal rights and other countries ( I think to that war and to the KYOTO protocol ). If a military intervention ( notice I'm not even talking about a war ) should have happened, it should have been done by the UN because all this mess came from a problem between IRAQ and the UN, not between IRAQ and the USA and UK. Period. The USA and UK didn't have the right to engage a war, neither do they have the right to occupy IRAQ.

Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI

[This message has been edited by poi (edited 12-16-2003).]

Granted... but they're there now, what's the point in arguing about whether or not it was right to do it in the first place? Saddam's been captured, a feather for Mr. Bush's cap, now he has to figure out how to end the hostilities over there in a way that will be best for his image and the Iraqis, as well as for the rest of the world.

Perhaps things could have been handled differently in the past to avoid the whole thing... and if my aunt had nuts, she'd be my uncle.

It's what we do from this point forward that's important now.


Cell 617

Whoa thats a lotta rhetoric up there.

A) Michael Moore is a bafoon with a camera looking to make a meager buck while trying to appear righteous. Bowling for Columbine was a farce. The way he cut the film to make it look like the NRA pres was speaking directly about columbine was as duplicitous as any "vast right wing conspiracy" could ever be.

B) It was about time America got a chance to expend munitions... right or wrong Iraq was a perfect firing range. "Shock and Awe" was not so much for Iraq, but for the rest of the world to see. We accomplish many things; scare the shit out of anyone who wants to fuck with us; recycle old weapons; create a need to spend massive amounts of money on restocking are weapons; And, get control of a vast oil reserve.

C) Funding a rebellion would be a ten year trickle: Trickle down economics aside it just would never had amounted to enough expenditure to move our trillion dollar economy. And there would have been all that pesky congressional oversight... never very effective.

The fact the Saddam was caught hiding in a hole is just icing on the cake. He's done. Now is the time to look at who else has something we as americans covet. It shouldnt take too long to figure out a way to take theirs as well... What does Rwanda have that we want? Rwanda? pffft... Lets not be silly.



_____________
Is this thing on?

A Work In Progress

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

I am glad to see there are others out there who share similar views to me, I only wish people with these views would stand up and voice their opinions more often. By saying that I support the war in Iraq I am not saying I am Pro-War, far from it. I am not even pro-US in many regards. I think this nation is on the verge of a social breakdown, but that is beside the point. I support the war in Iraq simply because I believe it to have been the only path to take.

First off, the WMDs. Iraq is a decent size country right? Give them time. You know, there is information that the intelligence agencies collect that isn?t released to the public. The media hardly gives you the full picture, most of the time it barely gives you half. Thing is, all media is subject to small alterations in wording to ?spin? and even mislead the public. I?ll say it once more, give them time.

If you ask me, I say we have found the worst WMD in that country, Saddam himself. For without Saddam or some other crazy dictator in there to use the WMDs, they are a moot point. Point being, the worst WMDs are not made of steel and chemicals, they are made of flesh and blood. At the risk of using a cliche, don't blame the gun, blame the guy who pulled the trigger.

WMDs aside, Saddam had his chance (many times) to redeem himself. He chose to blow off the world, so he was removed, simple as that. It is a shame that many had to die, I would have just had the bastard and his sons assassinated and been done with it, leaving the innocents to continue with their lives and their country. IIRC, though I cannot find a reference, assasination is illegal, so what's the next best option?

Now granted, even if we do find the other WMDs, it doesn?t matter now. Conspiracy theorists will eat that one up with joy. Hell, maybe they can even bring aliens into the mess. Actually, GW has been tapping into the Grey collective and meeting with all the top Saurians as well regarding this issue, and they have offered to plant the WMDs themselves.

Meanwhile, the Greys are two-timing us, hiding Saddam?s real WMDs in their underground bases and tunnels. Branton is there, along with bin Laden, JFK, Hoffa, and the Nazis. (off-topic side note: If you?ve never heard of Branton, take a look. Guy has some crazy ideas, and I bet that is something we can all agree on. )

Ini said

quote:

---

The usa are still using this war to make a profit as they refuse to let other countries help rebuild Iraq.

---

Hmm, well considering we were the ones who took the ball and ran with it while everyone else bitched and moaned about how wrong it was, I would take the same position there.

?You want a part in the rebuilding process, well where were you when our soldiers were sacrificing their lives to make a difference?? Asks the Coalition.

?We were too busy bad-mouthing your nations and complaining.? The whiners reply.

?Then you can take your offers and fill in the blank here.?

Sorry to be blunt, but isn't that basically what it comes down to.

Ini said

quote:

---

And no, it's not good to have the Usa create war for the us economy's sake.

---

I totally disagree here. Sure, undoubtedly one of the benefits of any war will be a boost in the economy. But the United States was the victim of one of the worst terrorist attacks in history. I don?t live in NYC, but happened to be there visiting relatives the week it happened. What I saw that day changed me. You live your life believing ideals of peace, then one day you witness two 100+ story buildings come crashing down before your eyes.

What?s that have to do with anything? A lot if you put yourselves in our shoes. After 9/11, why should we risk another such attack? The US intelligence agencies considered Iraq a threat to OUR national security due to information collected. Bush and his team reviewed that information, found it to be valid, and acted on it. Sorry if we as a country are getting a little tired of all the crap (those of us who don't let the media do our thinking for us)and are tired of playing the political game, a game which time and again failed in this particular area. As I stated above, there is more than likely a lot of information surrounding this that we as regular citizens are not privy to.

Ini said

quote:

---

And I have no doubt that WMDs will be discovered in Iraq, as soon as the us government has
found a way to discreetly bring them there...

---

So of course, no matter what happens, we lose. If we honestly find the WMDs, all the leftists out there are going to scream conspiracy. Ini, nobody likes war, but be real man. Humanity is warlike, whether you like it or not. We?ve been killing each other since the beginning, but look on the bright side, we are getting more humane about it.

As far as wars go, this was very mild and could have been a lot worse. There were those who predicted this would be another Vietnam, and it is not even in the same ballpark. Great measures were taken in keeping civilian casualties to a minimum. Sure, they got sloppy when aiming for officials, but all in all compare this to other war death counts. If anyone has a better source, feel free to post it. This is the best I could come up with.

What is it, roughly 8,000 Iraqis dead, 1500 of those being civilians? Ok, that is a lot but how many of these so-called civilians were armed? More importantly, what is the greater good? How many deaths has Saddam been responsible for in the past, of his own people and neighboring countries? Sure we are guilty of giving him weapons during the Iran/Iraq war, but I think every country has made some blunders in the past, many of which cost a lot more lives than that.

Also, as DL pointed out, Bush did not act alone. He made the decision to go to war based on the information presented him. If any of that information turns out to be false, do you blame him or his sources? If any false information was presented to him, I have no doubt he would make them pay. I believe in this man, it is a hard job and I don't think there are very many humans who could handle the weight that was put on his shoulders without cracking.

(OFF TOPIC RANT: 9/11 probably could have been avoided, but the fact that it wasn't is a testament to Bill C*****n's mess. He cut the budget of the CIA and NSA throughout both of his terms, knew the threat was there, but left it for someone else to clean up. He is the real POS IMO.)

Bugimus said

quote:

---

It's so easy to criticize and so very difficult to actually do anything in this world. More solutions and less hand wringing is what I want to hear from the Left please.

---

Well said Bugs. My sentiments exactly.

Poi, I haven?t agreed with one thing you?ve said here, but you are French so that isn?t any surprise. Please don't let my bluntness offend you, I would hope it would take more than words to do that anyway. It is not a racist or anti-French comment (I am 3/4 French BTW), it is just the truth. The general attitude of France in regards to the US is well known.

I?m going to be blunt, screw the UN. The UN does nothing for me, and only promises to herd us all into a global socialist animal farm without any national sovereignty. Sorry, I am against Globalization and anyone who supports it. After reading their charter, it all sounds like a bunch of idealistic crap to me with no application in the REAL world. A world where war, death, and evil are a fact of life.

In the end, what I really want to know, is how anyone would have done it better? Everyone moans and bitches and complains, particularly these wanna-be presidents. I have not heard one of them state how it could have been done differently, all they can do is bad-mouth the president like a bunch of little high schoolers. None of them seem very presidential to me, and I sure as hell don?t want a whiner in the White House, I want somebody that will do the job the best he knows how, and to me, that is what Bush has been doing all along.

I pose this final question, who is wrong? My answer is that we all are. War is wrong, but so is standing by with your thumb up your butt while innocents die. You want to make the world a better place? Sacrifices and actions must be made. No problem is going to just go away, and most of the time they will only get worse.

I am never happy to see anyone die in this world, but everyone does eventually. I am just glad that this wasn't as bad as it could have been, and more importantly, Saddam is gone. Regardless of any underlying motivation, that is what is important.

My 2 cents. Do with it what you will. Agree, disagree, put it in a blender on frappe.

Just making a new post so it isn't lost in my other one. I have a question for Ini regarding:

quote:

---

Please, show mercy, and show me something that can make this legit, that can make this
"the right choice" when it could easilly have been avoided.
Please...

---

How again could this have been avoided?
How many lives have been and were being taken under Saddam's regime?
How many lives were ending due to the UN sanctions?

Two scenarios:

1) Saddam remains in power: Innocent people continue to die indefinately.
2) Saddam is removed: Innocent people die, but there is an end.

As I asked in my previous post, what is the greater good here? As I see it you just don't like war, and I agree there. The point is that sometimes war is simply unavoidable. Lives were lost yes, but those who remain will be well taken care of, I'll bet every red cent of my tax dollars on that. Not to mention the added bonus of being FREE human beings, no longer held captive to an evil regime.



[This message has been edited by Ramasax (edited 12-17-2003).]

Thank you, Ramasax for stating the above much better than I. I agree with you.

heh, That's one at least.

Ramasax:

quote:

---

I am 3/4 French BTW

---

Nobody's perfect, but it could be worse, you could be French Don't worry, I can live with people thinking otherwise than me.

UN have been created after the WWII to be an internationnal peace maker, its inspectors and troops should be given a power superior to the one of its own countries. Until that the UN couldn't be taken seriously and few countries will have to take all the risks. It's not fair for them, and not how the things should work for the good of the world and the members of the UN. If the UN had engaged a military intervention, many countries would have followed ( Turkey to name one ) there would have been even more troops with more/various experience and the number of casualties would have been different and diffused among the countries.

To get back to the troubles within the UN, the USA claimed that IRAQ was a serious threat and was hidding some WMD. Although many intelligence services around the world emitted some serious doubt about the existence of Saddam's WMD, the USA refrained to give some clear evidence. No surprise that the UN didn't concluded to send its troops. Later some persons in the Bush administration admitted the CIA had supplied some wrong informations.

Of course, the end of Saddam's reign is a good thing. Nobody said the contrary.

Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI

[This message has been edited by poi (edited 12-17-2003).]

I would just like to point out, for all of those listening and participating, and especially those talking about "financial interests" that Halliburton has so far lost millions of dollars in Iraq.

Serves them right, in my opinion. (I agree that we are trying to exploit them for oil and other things, but I just happened to stumble on the Halliburton news, so I thought I would share it.)

Oh, yes, and I also will be exercising my vote come next election to help poke Mr. Bush off his pedestal if possible. I think that there is no excuse for the way we went in and for those pathetic reasons. Hell, if we can bully whoever we want around because they have powerful toys, then so should we be bullied. Would some of you Canadians and Europeans please motion that America's nukes be handed over or destroyed, and invade us if we don't cooperate? They are quite dangerous in the hands of a madman.

-Xel

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

It may be obvious to every one now, but I think, we could even post 1 billions messages here that nobody will change his/her mind.

A little off topic, but I saw yesterday in the news that there's an exposition in homage to the Enola Gay.... This is scary to give an homage to a plane that did ~200.000 direct casualties while you are "freeing" a country. What a nice intention.

Mathieu "POÏ" HENRI

quote:

---

it's just that nobody called for this war except the us government

---

That's not correct.

The Brits were just as gung-ho, and many other nations *did* in fact support it.

Again, I've said from the start that we did not have the justification for starting this. But it was certainly not the US alone.

And this war, though I still feel it was unjustified, still does not come anywhere near the evil perpetuated by Saddam himself in his own country.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 12-17-2003).]

Poi:

quote:

---

It may be obvious to every one now, but I think, we could even post 1 billions messages here that nobody will change his/her mind

---

Hey Poi, there's something we agree on. Everyone will share a different viewpoint depending on their particular culture, life experience, and brand of propaganda (which unfortunately we are all victims of as someone above stated, but what else do we have to go on?)

Ini, I never wanted to come across that I thought any war was humane, I don't believe that. I am aganst violence, hell we have enough of it on our streets here. I just don't believe there was a better choice. Remove all the BS surrounding this situation (money, greed, power, and any other unpure motivations) and what you are left with is what I said above:

1) Saddam remains in power: Innocent people continue to die indefinately.
2) Saddam is removed: Innocent people still die, but there is an end.

When it comes down to it, I base my choice off of those two scenarios because I believe #2 to be the best in the long run, for the world and for the Iraqis. The truth is that no matter what, innocent people die. A man like Saddam does not allow the third choice of peace unfortunately.

As far as everyone elses WMDs: make guns illegal, and only criminals will have guns. Same thing here, a balance of power must be kept. I don't like the fact that our race has enough firepower to destroy the world many times over, and it would be nice to disarm the whole world. But if you do that, there is nothing stopping people like Hussein from carrying out their dreams of conquest while we all sit around helpless.

But, as Poi states, my words can't change your views, and vice versa. So, in the end, all I can do is this:

quote:

---

OFF TOPIC RANT: 9/11 probably could have been avoided, but the fact that it wasn't is a testament to Bill C*****n's mess. He cut the budget of the CIA and NSA throughout both of his terms, knew the threat was there, but left it for someone else to clean up. He is the real POS IMO.

---

That's actually completely wrong. Bill C*****n actually devoted more efforts to stopping terrorism and capturing Osama Bin Lanin (after Regan and Bush armed and put Bin Ladin in power) than anyone else. Clintion had placed into action plans that were targetting known terrorists, including Bin Ladin, and they were succeeding until they were cut completely short by the end of his term in office. When the Bush administrator came into power, they nixed the anti-terrorism plans until after 9/11 and then reinstated Clintion's plans verbetum claiming them as his own.


It's only after we've lost everything...
That we're free to do anything...

Yep.

It's real easy for GW to act the hero now, and for c*****n to protrayed as weak and in effective in hindsight.

But it's simply not true.


Bin Laden could have been a much reduced threat had GW listened to C*****n in the first place.

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 12-18-2003).]

[Emp edit: It appears this has been continued here (although to be honest I didn't think this had yet got unweildy but he ho........):
http://www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum1/HTML/008496.html ]

[This message has been edited by Emperor (edited 12-18-2003).]