Breaking news: Saddam is captured

[Tedob1]

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
In my personal point of view Saddam has had plenty of time to stop the things that he has been doing. But did he ? Of course not cause he didn't care. It was time to remove him.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

he didn't care becuase he didn't think he had too. he never expected any western leader would have balls enough to do what had to be done...surprise!

[fourdc]

The 2004 presidential election is Bush's to lose. How hard can he come down on Halliburton and their shady practices in price gouging their "no bid" contract?

Capturing Saddam isn't going to stop the suicide bombings. The American people are going to be asking how much longer the troops are going to be over there when Saddam has been captured already.

Don't reinaugurate Bush yet.

[Conf1rm3d_K1ll]

Originally posted here by Tedob1

he didn't care becuase he didn't think he had too. he never expected any western leader would have balls enough to do what had to be done...surprise!

Balls? The Bush Administration is guilty of falsifying intelligence, misleading the public and creating ridiculous claims to invade an oil producing country. How is that having "balls"? The most cowardly thing about it is they rode the wave of emotion from the deaths of 9/11 to justify their actions......


Anyway, where's Osama?

[tonybradley]

Balls? The Bush Administration is guilty of falsifying intelligence, misleading the public and creating ridiculous claims to invade an oil producing country. How is that having "balls"? The most cowardly thing about it is they rode the wave of emotion from the deaths of 9/11 to justify their actions......

I agree. We could probably fabricate... I mean find... as much evidence about suspicious weapons programs and human rights violations against any number of countries- but they don't have oil.

When I was fighting in Desert Storm- ostensibly to defend Kuwait from the evil invading armies of the tyrannical Iraq (it was of course not about the oil)- Lithuania was trying to secede from what was left of the Soviet Union. Russia drove a bunch of tanks in and re-conquered it and Bush Sr. didn't bat an eyelash.

In my mind as a soldier at the time the scenarios were similar- a larger, more powerful tyrannical government forcibly siezing and imposing its will on a smaller, weaker nation. So, if that was truly our cause, why not go defend Lithuania as well?? Simple- they didn't have any oil and we weren't prepared to fight for our principles in a real war- one where the enemy had a chance of defending themselves against us.

Throughout the Clinton administration and into the GW administration the United States government has made Saudi Arabia off limits in their investigations of terrorist funding and activity. The Saudi royal family themselves may not be involved, but there is a lot of very coincidental circumstantial evidence linking Saudi Arabia with terrorist organizations and activities- when are we attacking them???

[/|Glacier|\]

Breaking news: Saddam i...
Today 11:55 AM At least post proof of your claims in the form of a link.

- contact user about this assignment: AP Poster: Conf1rm3d_K1ll (neggative)
Breaking news: Saddam i...
Today 11:55 AM What are you talking about...

- contact user about this assignment: AP Poster: Ennis (neggative)


I always new liberals played dirty politics its no suprise to me. Come back when you have some target practice rats

[tonybradley]

I always new liberals played dirty politics its no suprise to me.

And if you dont support the war on terror(Iraq) you are a terrorist.
You are either for us or against us.

So- to clarify- it is your position that anyone who doesn't blindly support the regime is either a liberal, a terrorist, or both?

I am always up for a good debate- especially on politics or religion (or both simultaneously in the case of the Republican party). However, I have one cardinal rule- the other party must be able to articulate their opinion intelligently and form arguments that support and defend their point of view. Sadly, you don't qualify.

There is almost nothing more pathetic than someone who has been granted the freedom of expression and the freedom to think critically about what is going on in the world and question the decisions of their elected officials- but who chooses to follow blindly in the name of patriotism. Its an insult to all of the less fortunate citizens of countries withot such freedoms- to those who do think critically and question and die for having done so. Those in Iraq who have lived for decades under such a government only to be "heroically set free" by the United States would pity such a fool that had what they have been dreaming of and fighting for- but opted to voluntarily give up those freedoms in favor of blind patriotism.

Now- don't get me wrong. I have nothing against someone who has in fact thought critically about the situation- who has looked at the evidence and the pros and cons and come to their own conclusion and has chosen the path of siding with the Bush administration's actions. I have just had a very difficult time finding anyone that falls into that group. The only people I can find that support Bush are the blind patriots who don't even know enough about the situation to make a logical argument on the subject.

[Sweetlissa]

The government needs to do what they feel is "right" to protect the interests of their fellow Americans. I did not agree with us going into Iraq to go after Saddam in the beginning. I believe we should have focused solely on Osama bin Laden before anything, captured him and then if it led up to it, gone into Iraq. The way Saddam treated his people had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. 3/4 of the terrorists on the planes were from Saudi Arabia! I think that was just a poor excuse to go into Iraq at the time. We were going in regardless, but to make himself look more of a "hero" chose to do it at that given time, to please the mourning and pissed off Americans who would have gone along with going after Iceland if it meant somebody would pay for 9/11. As far as Saddam and his "war crimes", he did some pretty sick and disgusting things but has anybody sat back and thought of how OUR government taxes the crap out of us for buying cigarettes? I have yet to find a rehab for people trying to quit, becaue they don't exist. The government doesn't want people to quit, they want us to pay these taxes and kill ourselves. So, in turn, let's compare how many people Saddam had killed compared with how many Americans have died from smoking. Just a thought. But you would never in a million years see a president from another country come HERE and try to capture our president for killing his citizens. President Bush wanted to finish what his Daddy started. This was personal, and now he is going to sit back and take the credit for what our brave servicemen and women have done. So now, America has their hand in the big bucket of oil, and no one to stop them now.

PS I am not a terrorist! lmao

[lumpyporridge]

I find it most interesting that they did not murder him (saddam) At his trial very interesting and embarassing things will come out about the relations between the us and iraq.

[pwaring]

Who says he will have a public trial in Iraq? It wouldn't surprise me if he was tried by an American jury and sentenced by an American judge.

As for murdering him, it would have been a bit difficult as Saddam apparently put up no resistance. Had he been surrounded by dozens of troops blazing away at anyone who came within 100 yards, then the coalition forces could have just bombed his hiding place and claimed self-defence. However, to kill him when he had surrended wouldn't have been civilised and at the end of the day if we are to justify this war we must at all times uphold the standards of democracy and act in a civilised manner, even if that means not delivering immediate justice to one of the world's most evil tyrants.

[MrLinus]

Adnan Pachachi, a leading member of the Iraqi Governing Council, said Saddam would be tried for his crimes against Iraqis, and would be tried by Iraqis. "There will be a public hearing," Pachachi said, "a trial that is open."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ure/index.html

I think the final location will be up for grabs. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if it's sent to The Hague like many other war crimes tribunals.