Saddam Hussein Captured

[Raiha]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B][size=1]

Sure it?s nice to catch him but why did we lose our troops going after him in the first place? [/B][/QUOTE] [COLOR=royalblue]Well...you see my dear cloricus, we call it war. People get shot when there's poor organization and bad judgement calls, and pathetic/non existant strong leadership. We lost troops because Iraqi soldiers were like...shooting at us?

Oh yes, and to all those statements about Saddam being tried in an International Tribune, I seriously doubt the U.S. will let him. If we give him a chance to talk, he just might bring up International Law, which could result in him justifying this.

We discussed the matter in class, and although I can't remember the finer details, I'm pretty sure the U.S. violated some minor part of International Law, and if Saddamn is allowed to bring these points to light, we just might have a Media war/outcry on our hands. Personally, I think the U.S. government is not THAT stupid.[/COLOR]

[Baron Samedi]

New information for you all.

Troops were about the throw a grenade into the spiderhole when he came out, surrendered and told them who he was.

So, I think that while the coward label is slightly accurate, he also may have done the most sensible thing. What kind of martyr would he have been if he had been killed, and nobody ever knew that it was him? I never knew that he was armed James... I didn't hear about that. Anyway, they were about to blow his little spiderhole sky-high. So can you blame him for giving up? Sure he was a hypocrite, and a liar [among other things] but I don't really think you can call him cowardly. I coward would have given up as soon as the US threatened to invade.

BTW, I do remember Cloricus's old avatar. But what does that have to do with anything? Accept other people's viewpoints [[i]All of you[/i]] and move on. If it had truly been offensive, it would have been removed, but I think the general OB popualce accepted it as it was meant - light heartedly. And believe me, a lot of people felt that way, that Bush was an uinfair aggressor. I don't know the American viewpoint, but this is how lots of people over here saw it, anyway.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Baron Samedi [/i]
[B]New information for you all.

Troops were about the throw a grenade into the spiderhole when he came out, surrendered and told them who he was.

So, I think that while the coward label is slightly accurate, he also may have done the most sensible thing. What kind of martyr would he have been if he had been killed, and nobody ever knew that it was him? I never knew that he was armed James... I didn't hear about that. Anyway, they were about to blow his little spiderhole sky-high. So can you blame him for giving up? Sure he was a hypocrite, and a liar [among other things] but I don't really think you can call him cowardly. I coward would have given up as soon as the US threatened to invade.

BTW, I do remember Cloricus's old avatar. But what does that have to do with anything? Accept other people's viewpoints [[i]All of you[/i]] and move on. If it had truly been offensive, it would have been removed, but I think the general OB popualce accepted it as it was meant - light heartedly. And believe me, a lot of people felt that way, that Bush was an uinfair aggressor. I don't know the American viewpoint, but this is how lots of people over here saw it, anyway. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=violet]I do agree, he is a coward and a liar. Along with quite a few other things that are completely irrelevent to this post.
I did hear this morning that 4thID troops (out of FT.Hood!) were about to throw a grenade into his spider hole before he came out with his hands in the air so to speak.
I also notice that the violence hasn't stopped even with Sadm's capture. There was another car bomb that killed 9 people so, we've still got work to do (we meaning any involved forces, [i]not[/i] just the American troops). As demonstrated, this war is far from over and I hope people will realize that.
As for Cloricus's old avatare, I thought it was funny. I saw the same saying on a bumpersticker last week. So obviously, it's not just CLoricus who feels this way. I have no clue what relevence it has in this post or in others, but hey.[/color]
[color=purple]Yes, I am an eternal pessimist where this war is concerned. We shouldn't have gotten ourselves so deeply involved in this country while we still have troops in Afghanistan as well. This country was spread too thin already, but I'm not the Major General of any military branch in the United States so what I say here is just my opinion. Debate it if you must, but I won't change it.
In my humble opinion, the military personal stationed there should try to teach the Iraqi people military and governing skills as quickly as possible then move out. Our soldiers (of any country) don't need to be over there any longer than absolutely necessary. And since this war was officially declared over in May 2003. there is no need to enact the stoploss (need to know what a stoploss is, PM me I can explain most military stuff) any more so the troops whose ETS dates are coming up shouldn't be made to stay past those.
I understand that this is a war and that people get killed in wars. I just don't see the need to over stay our welcome which we obviously have.
SIncerly,
Chibi Horsewoman[/color]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

O.K. Now you pushed my nerves.

[quote][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
Voice for good, hmmm okay let?s see. I'll ask the question "Where are the WMD?"
[/quote]They were located in 3 powerplants across Iraq. There were 2 on the mid-southern end, and one on the northwestern end. You see, the uranium from Africa which WAS traced, mind you, was traced to powerplants. The uranium was labeled to be used for electrical production. But when our inspectors investigated the powerplants, they found that a large some of it was being used to manufacture warheads. Nukes. Not only were they manufacturing the warheads, but they already had quite a few (exact number was not announced) in the plants.

Ladies and gentlement who are stubbornly denying what I've said: 2 things. Number 1: Why do you think that they don't mention on the news that they haven't found any WMD anymore? The only people who do are your common un-informed average Joes, or a report that is 3 months old.
Number 2: I was home sick on a school day when I saw this on the news. I wouldn't even of had it on the news if it weren't for my grandmother wanting to watch it. So they said what I had said above, posted up a map that had 3 circles marked on where the plants were, then moved on. No wonder why no one else knows this. Darn the democratic monopoly on the media.
[quote]Saddam has been quoted to say he didn't have any only a day ago.[/quote] And your point is? Here's mine: He wouldn't tell the truth. I bet he doesn't even know we had found them.
[quote]It has been long enough now to search the country. It's not like searching for a needle in a hay stack, it's like looking for a tennis ball in a hay stack; easy to find once you have a bit of a look. [/quote]
Not quite... since nuclear weapons were being stored in a nuclear power-plant, all the little giegercounters wouldn't pick up the weapons. So it's more like searching for a wood-chip in a haystack.
[quote]And if the USA doesn't find any why isn?t it getting in trouble, lots of it. (So should all countries involved, including Australia.)[/quote]Because they found it. Very, very simple answer. And second: [i][u][b]No one liked Saddam in the first place with the exception of the French, and a few loyal supporters.[/i][/u][/b]
[quote]They [b][i][u]INVADED[/u][/i][/b] a country for no reason at all as it wasn?t posing a threat,
[/quote]Reality check: Iraq has been posing a threat for a long time now. Even Clinton fired on it because not only did Iraq try to launch an attack here, but also threatened America on more than one occasion. No. 2: That little group of terrorrists that were in Afghanistan were also viewed just as a group of America-hatahs like the many others in this world with only slightly more power in it. "[i]Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me![/i]" I present to you the fact that if it weren't for 9/11, we wouldn't of had the authority to attack Iraq. Iraq as it was a long time ago has, and had always been more of a threat than a little terrorrist nobody group. Even if they hadn't found WMD, which they did, [i]better safe than sorry[/i]. You see, if a person is threatening you, and is proven to be a cruel dictator who kills his own people by terrorist-like tactics, and has "rape as a hobbie," and he can very VERY easily have a gun on him, and he just bought a clip of bullets, I sure would've stopped him right then and there, because waiting for him to pull that gun and shoot it at you, regardless of whether he has one or not, is a dumb act. Especially if you CAN take action. You don't just cover your ears and hope he doesn't blow your head off eventually. Because [u]last[/u] time you didn't do anything, you DID get shot. Now you are stuck with a crutch for your temporarily missing foot, and face the exact same dilema that another pesident who the democrats very predictably raised to look better than he actually was took action on.

[quote] it doesn?t even have enough oil to pay off ?war damages?. [/quote]
And they're keeping aliens in Area 51, right? That is some stupid rumor that someone came up with to make Bush look bad. Number 1: our veichicals aren't equiped to take the oil back with us. Number 2: Even if we did, we gave the majority back to the Iraqies themselves because Saddam as hoarding all the money for it by himself.

I bet the only reason why he announced he was going to spend 87 Billion dollars on Iraq is to dispell this very VERY common rumor. And guess what? You don't know how fast he's going to spend that money. He's probably set aside a plan with a total of 87 billion dollars over a period of lets say a year or two. Because [i][u]no one spends a great amount of money, regardless if they have it or not, all at once.[/i][/u] Every buy a house? How about buy a College book? A car? Even with the money, you aren't spending it all at once.

[quote]Of course you can't use "he's an evil dictator" because I will be telling you to go off and fight all the other, and easier, dictators to remove who have and are more evil to their people than that old man Saddam. [/quote] Sheerly matter of opinion. Go ahead and name 2 dictators who you would classify and that everyone here could agree with are "Eviler" than Saddam without doing research. Saddam is worse because he has a whole lot more power over a lot more things than just some "other [u]easier[/u] dictator" would.

[quote]Sure it?s nice to catch him but why did we lose our troops going after him in the first place? [/quote]
Reality check: We lose troops every day in other places than just Iraq. The only reason why we lose troops, is because people would chose to fight for a man they were scared of over peace. And paranoid propaganda had spread out everwhere. Why were his sons killed? Because they fought back. Why wasn't he killed? Because he didn't fight back.

We lose policeman every day on the job trying to find elite crime members, and drug lords. Are you going to tell us to stop looking for them, too?

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Baron Samedi [/i]
[B]

So, I think that while the coward label is slightly accurate, he also may have done the most sensible thing. What kind of martyr would he have been if he had been killed, and nobody ever knew that it was him? I never knew that he was armed James... I didn't hear about that. Anyway, they were about to blow his little spiderhole sky-high. So can you blame him for giving up? Sure he was a hypocrite, and a liar [among other things] but I don't really think you can call him cowardly. I coward would have given up as soon as the US threatened to invade.

[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]I don't blame him for giving up, no.

But the man is a coward. He sat there and ranted and raved that he'd die for his country -- that he'd never surrender. So what does he do? He starts pleading to "negotiate" with US troops. Give me a break.

If his cowardly behavior at capture aren't enough for you to be convinced that he's a coward, then you only have to look at what he did to his own daughter and other family members.

I don't even know why there's a debate on that point. There clearly shouldn't be -- no matter what your views on the war are.

As far as WMD are concerned...I'm not even going to comment. I'm not going to comment because it will just fall on deaf ears. If I hear "where are the WMD" one more time, I'm going to scream.

Yes, I can see why people would ask that question. And yes, I can see why it's legitimate.

But resolution 1441 [b]did not[/b] require the recovery or discovery of WMD. It [b]only[/b] required that Iraq verifiably demonstrate the whereabouts of unaccounted stockpiles of weapons and munitions.

So many people seem to forget this basic fact. And it annoys me, because we can never have a reasonable debate about Iraq without some idiot (from either side) jumping in with stupid and uninformed comments.

I am willing to say that 90% of people who are arguing for and against war (in this thread or in any other venue) [b]do not[/b] even understand (or have read) 1441. So why bother? I give up.[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

[quote]Resolution 1441 did not require the recovery or discovery of WMD. It only required that Iraq verifiably demonstrate the whereabouts of unaccounted stockpiles of weapons and munitions.[/quote]I believe Iraq submitted a ten thousand page document that out lined what had happened to its stockpiles and cleared up the misunderstandings of things plus offered to let in as many weapons inspectors a few weeks/days before all of this when they finally realised that America wasn?t bluffing.
The white house dismissed it as lies because Iraq "had to have WMD". Now if the USA cannot find WMD they have then broken international law which makes it extremely relevant, hell it would give me the precedent to say you were hiding WMD in your house and I could invade it with troops, kill your family and arrest you.

?The Canadian?s have pleaded with the US but naturally we aren?t listening?
? News reporter, South Park (The Movie) [strike]Joke[/strike]

Crimson Spider can you please link your news story?
I would say you wouldn't be able to since every one on the planet with a TV or radio would have heard about it. Bush would have made a speech justifying this whole thing and gloated for while.
The French and others apposing the war would have come on side and this whole thing would be over. (I assume with that statement more people on side equals more troops and support which would get the job done quicker.)

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
Crimson Spider can you please link your news story? [/QUOTE]
If you insist, I'll go searching in a little bit.

[quote]I would say you wouldn't be able to since every one on the planet with a TV or radio would have heard about it.[/quote]
Shows how much you know. Where were you at 11 o'clock on a weekday? School? Work? Sleep? You see, every time something happens that the media dis-agrees with, they briefly mention it and move on! Why else do you think there are millions of people who still believe in the mars rock? If I wasn't absent, then I wouldn't have even seen it!

Just today, right now, I heard the interview with Bush. She said that the evidence that [u]Chemical weapons[/u] didn't seem to exist, and asked him about that. He replied and said that "We have a body of evidence", meaning that apparently they DO have proof that they have found a chemical weapon, or an extreamly reliable source.

Not to mention that each time the inspectors would move to a new place, truckloads and truckloads of stuff, which Iraqies denied the existance of, would move consealed stuff out of the area they were going to inspect. Good ole spy satelites. That was blared on the radio and TV, too? Are you going to deny that?

How do I know that that Iraq Submitted a ten thousand page document to America? I sure didn't hear that! But guess what? I'm not gonna deny it simply because it is probable that it happened. And unless you've read every page there, you wouldn't know what happened to the weapons that they used to have, or if their statement [i]was[/i] a bunch of lies. And I state again: [u][b][i]The only reason why his sons died is because they fought back[/u][/b][/i]. His second son actually attacked Americans, which I heard on the news again.
[quote] Bush would have made a speech justifying this whole thing and gloated for while. [/quote]Who said he didn't? I don't know about you, but I don't hear every single speach that Bush makes. Simply because you have 1 source: TV. That is the only place that you ever hear anything from Bush. Even when he visited Las Vegas, my OWN city, I didn't hear what he said. I only heard what he did.

Wanna know why you don't ever see a website that supports Bush? Simply put: the republicans don't have any controll over the media. Atleast in my and your area. Why else do you think that half the nation says the war was good?

[quote] The French and others apposing the war would have come on side and this whole thing would be over. (I assume with that statement more people on side equals more troops and support which would get the job done quicker.) [/quote]
A what if? Statement. There was only one reason why France opposed the war: money. Saddam was giving them money, and the French wanted that cash. And unless there is a Unanimous decision in the UN, the UN can't take action on something of that scale.

Spectator syndrom: No one is sure why it happens, but it does. It is when something happens, you stand and stare dumbfounded at it and not budge. This happens at a large scale. France, probably still not wanting to get involved in the war, [i]but is now helping the funding towards the war[/i], just sat back because the Americans could handel it.

So I'll be back soon.

Well, I multitasked and this is the first site I found: [url]http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030809.shtml[/url]

I'll be back later.

EDIT: I'm baaaaaack!

[url]http://www.rense.com/general38/madein.htm[/url]

This explains quite a bit. The mobile labs is an assumption, but there ARE veichicals that were moving around AWAY from inspectors.

[Guest cloricus]

Well one of us has been feed a stupidly large amount of propaganda though from a poll two months ago by a usa university found that 64% of American's believe that Iraq used chemical weapons on it's troops in GW2 and 26% think Saddam personally ordered the attacks on the WTC with a further 4% believing he was on the plane that hit the buildings I wouldn't want to take a wild guess at who it was...

Your links are laughable, one is pure (conspiracy) theory and the other one talks about sketchy evidence that should have been released by now. (They arn't even upto ABC.net.au standards.) Honestly, some people will believe anything put in front of them... Oh yeah did you hear, Elvis is back!

Crimson I don't live in your country, I watch the news every night on three different stations (for lack of better things to do; one is pro-war and the other two are anti-war) and every time "Bush" makes an [b]important[/b] speech it is broadcast at least in part on one of them. Finding justification for this war is [i]important[/i] and if they did most would start supporting this war on the most part as I would and most others that I know.

[Guest Bloodsin]

Getting Saddam does nothing.

He was never a real threat to begin with.

OMG!
He's a third world leader with a hand full of tanks and few soldiers!

The thing that pisses me off is the fact that Bush stood up and preached how freedom is "A god given right" while he refuses to help Taiwan with their independence.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B]Getting Saddam does nothing.

He was never a real threat to begin with.

OMG!
He's a third world leader with a hand full of tanks and few soldiers!

The thing that pisses me off is the fact that Bush stood up and preached how freedom is "A god given right" while he refuses to help Taiwan with their independence. [/B][/QUOTE]
[color=violet]If he wasn't a real threat young padawan, then who do you consider a real threat? No, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm serious.
True, he may not have been an immidiate threat to our nation, but this man was as bad, if not worse, than Hitler and Stalin. He gassed his own people. Kidnapped and raped women. What was to keep him from finding a way to do the same to other nations?
Oh wait...he [i]did[/i] do the same thing to another nation. Or maybe you're too young to remember Desert Storm and Desert Sheild? If that's the case, I can understand.
As for the remark about the handfull of tanks and soldiers I believe it's been proven on the news that this man didn't need tanks and soldiers to fight against the coalition troops. All he needed was Malotove Cocktails and a bunch of Bath party loyalists and other people who just plain don't like Western influence (or invaders if you want). A few mined children thrown at soldiers, and we've got ourselves another Vietnam.
Of course, I don't know why I'm explaining this to you. All you're going to do is come back with some half baked retailiation, but hey, everyone's entitled to their opinion.[/color]
[color=purple]I'm still on the fence about this whole mess we're in. As shown, the troops over there are still facing deadly opposition, but perhaps we're making some small headways here and there.
Oh yeah, [b]New Flash[/b] Sadam is starting to be a bit of a problem captive. But what did you expect once the guns were pointed away from his head? Maybe 4th ID can get some of their helicopter maintenence over there and threaten him with screw drivers for cooperation?
One battle won, but the war is far from over.
Chibi Horsewoman.[/color]

[Guest Bloodsin]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i]
[B][color=violet]If he wasn't a real threat young padawan, then who do you consider a real threat? No, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm serious. [/color] [/B][/QUOTE]
Of course it's not sarcasm, sarcasm is reinstating the obvious. Because you aren't funny, Sarcasm without humor is just idiocy.



[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i]
[B][color=violet]True, he may not have been an immidiate threat to our nation, but this man was as bad, if not worse, than Hitler and Stalin. He gassed his own people. Kidnapped and raped women.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]
You think things are much different in the rest of the middle east?
Saddam is an exception?

Yes he was a bad man, yes he'll get his.
But it was wrong to start a war to stop him.
People seldom change. In time, the people will fall back to a dictatorship.
It's already begun.
1/3 of Iraqis soldiers left because they didn't like the pay. And others left because they didn't like the uniforms. If the Iraqis themselves wanted freedom so bad that they would risk their lives even in a battle they couldn't win, to overthrow Saddam(Similar to how America fought the British) Then you'd see soldiers joining for free.
Freedom won't last long.
The whole war was in vain.

[Leoko's_Koibito]

well....i guess i'm glad they captured him. my parents were very happy... o.o

[Pinball_Wizard]

[QUOTE]he should be tried in an American court, in my opinion. Because, let's face it, a lot of these people are still scared of him.[/QUOTE]

You fools! The american war court!?! Do you know how unfair and biased that is!?! The accused gets a military lawyer who is being payed by the miliytary caught, they only alow the evidence that they want to be used to be presented and the President *spits* gets the final say in EVERYTHING that happens in the war court!

If the Iraqui people lay down their arms to the invading american forces, all hope will be lost. TO ARMS, BROTHERS!!!!

[Charles]

To be honest, I'm almost insulted at how easily people can sit here from the relative safety of their [i]parents'[/i] computers and blithely discredit the removal of a lingering source of instability that has dogged the U.S.-led reconstruction effort.

I honestly don't know how people can say that the war is in vain when Hussein's regime is long gone and most of its former leaders, now including Hussein himself, are either in custody or dead.

Saddam was a cruel, ruthless dictator--and a murderer. He's made his own people suffer. If that isn't justification for war, I don't know what is. I could elaborate on this point and list the terrible things he?s done, but it'd be a waste of time. It'd just be overlooked anyway--as it already has.

I will admit it is true that a stable democracy remains far from realized. I know that while rebuilding is under way, Iraq remains torn by a violent insurgency, political gridlock and economic underperformance. But, with this in mind, people need to realize that there will be no quick exit from Iraq. A lot has been accomplished; a lot remains to be done. How anyone can ignore this simple logic is beyond me. Do you expect a devastated nation to magically heal itself immediately following the capture of one individual? Don't be silly.

Some of you are the last people in the world who should be commenting on the issue at all. It's obvious. Which leads me to my next point.

Iraq will [i]not[/i] revert back to a dictatorship. That's possibly the most ignorant comment I've read. But, considering the thread it's located in, I won't commit to that statement. lol

Do you really believe the world would allow such a thing to happen after all that's occurred? Give me a break.

Despite the kaleidoscope of problems Iraq is facing, their council has already proposed a series of nationwide caucuses to choose members of a new transitional assembly which will in turn choose a new interim government. Here is further proof:

[quote][b]According to the data, Iraqis overwhelmingly agree on the importance of free and fair elections (87% very important, 8% somewhat important), that people should abide by the law and that criminals should be punished (90% very important, 4% somewhat important), that groups should share power in government (89% important for ethnic groups, 87% important for religious groups), that Iraqis should have the right to criticize their government (86% very or somewhat important), that media should report without government censorship (78%), and that there should be equal rights for women (50% very important, 21% somewhat important).[/b][/quote]

Here's the point everyone should embrace: Saddam's capture was an important symbol. He was found in a hole, a mess of a man, hiding like the people who were forced to live in fear of [i]him[/i] and his regime. He was reduced to the cowardly rat he truly is.

His capture is a great victory to those who endured a living hell because of him.

Having said that, it's time to close this thread. It's become far too ridiculous for me to allow it to continue. Let's face it--we can't have a discussion when most of the people involved have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Although I'm weary about doing away with this because of the possibility of new information presenting itself, I see no other choice. Sad.