OMG, Hussein Captured!

[Cooltrainer Aaron]

actually I didn't Soda boy, It does seem like something he'd say though.

 

[Turbo Blastoise]

I still don't understand how all this has to do with the "War On Terror".

 

[GuardianTIM]

Yoshi, if I were someone who looked nearly identical to someone who did (well, you know the details) who is being hunted, then I'd be hardly likely to just walk down the streets shaking hands and saying "Why, hello there!" to everyone I met.

UncleBob, I hadn't thought of that one. Although it's unlikely that they have a vial labelled "Saddam DNA" just lying about, if they compare this guy's DNA to the DNA of Saddam's son's cadavers (damn, I hope they collected some), then you could compare them, and as long as there was a very close genetic resemblance, then there's a very good chance that they've got the right guy.

TurboBlastoise, I think it goes something like this (though my memory could be a bit off on some of the points)...

*10 years back (or however long ago it was), America fights Saddam, but pulls out before actually getting him.
*September 11, some years later, a couple of planes go flying into the WTC.
*America says: "MUST HAVE VENGEANCE" (Though I suppose they couldn't just sit back and let them get away with it.)
*America attacks Afghanistan, and Osama Bin Laden (who was disowned by his own family for his behaviour, long before all this) is the leader of a group that claims responsibility for the attacks. Osama hides, where he can't be found by the US.
*America says: "MUST HAVE SCAPEGOAT" and looks through history for a new target - sees Saddam's name on the list
*America attacks Iraq, claiming that it's part of the "War On Terror", better known to the public as the "War For Oil".
I think it goes something like that, and the rest, as they say, is history, except it's only _recent_ history, really.


It's just more stupid politics. As Yoshi said, some people are predicting that Bush will win the next election because of this.

Just over here a short while back the government increased our taxes by adding more special extra bonus taxes (Emergency Services Levy, Save the River Murry Levy, Bushfire Levy, Drought Levy, Fill the Politician's Wallets Levy, and so on ), then as it comes towards election time, they claim that they have "surplus funds". Then they go and say that they're going to cut our taxes because of it, in a feeble attempt to make themselves look like the good guys. Of course, overall, our taxes have still increased, except now we're expected to feel happy about it, because it didn't increase by QUITE as much as we were told it would.

Perhaps if America didn't go invading Iraq without the United Nations backing, and using the power of veto against any decisions made by the UN, and if they weren't having so many casualties due to "Friendly Fire", and if Bush didn't use such stupid phrases ("we'll round them up", "we'll smoke them out" - I know he's from Texas, but am I watching the world news, or reruns of 'Rawhide'?) and didn't choose to act so impulsively, then we might have a bit more enthusiasm about it all.

But so far, it's just more politics....

 

[ilc]

yeah, there will definately be more of an influx of fighting in the next few weeks until they can get him safely out of the country for trial. Remember, a chicken still runs after its head is cut off. So we haven't seen the worst yet.

They won't get him out of the country, heck they have no real choice but to leave him there for a trial, I mean they keep talking about giving power back to the Iraqis, and well if they take him elsewhere then we will have some PO'ed Iraqqis wanting him to be tried in Iraq

 

[jdb728]

Yoshi, if I were someone who looked nearly identical to someone who did (well, you know the details) who is being hunted, then I'd be hardly likely to just walk down the streets shaking hands and saying "Why, hello there!" to everyone I met.

It would kinda take susspission away though, don't ya think?

UncleBob, I hadn't thought of that one. Although it's unlikely that they have a vial labelled "Saddam DNA" just lying about, if they compare this guy's DNA to the DNA of Saddam's son's cadavers (damn, I hope they collected some), then you could compare them, and as long as there was a very close genetic resemblance, then there's a very good chance that they've got the right guy.

That sounds promising, if they have the dna, and if the dna comes close, then there's a chance that it's the right guy.

TurboBlastoise, I think it goes something like this (though my memory could be a bit off on some of the points)...

*10 years back (or however long ago it was), America fights Saddam, but pulls out before actually getting him.
*September 11, some years later, a couple of planes go flying into the WTC.
*America says: "MUST HAVE VENGEANCE" (Though I suppose they couldn't just sit back and let them get away with it.)
*America attacks Afghanistan, and Osama Bin Laden (who was disowned by his own family for his behaviour, long before all this) is the leader of a group that claims responsibility for the attacks. Osama hides, where he can't be found by the US.
*America says: "MUST HAVE SCAPEGOAT" and looks through history for a new target - sees Saddam's name on the list
*America attacks Iraq, claiming that it's part of the "War On Terror", better known to the public as the "War For Oil".
I think it goes something like that, and the rest, as they say, is history, except it's only _recent_ history, really.

Well, perhaps, but Saddam should have been takin' out a long time ago, Bush was just cleaning up Clintons mistake. People can call it the war on terror if they like(Just remember, if you lived in a place with a "leader"/dictator, you'd be killed for sayin' he's wrong), but I don't think that anyone's gonna dispute that Saddam should've been takin' out a long time ago.

It's just more stupid politics. As Yoshi said, some people are predicting that Bush will win the next election because of this.

Well, I think he's the best choice out of what we have to choose from(although we don't have the best selection ever IMO).

Perhaps if America didn't go invading Iraq without the United Nations backing, and using the power of veto against any decisions made by the UN, and if they weren't having so many casualties due to "Friendly Fire", and if Bush didn't use such stupid phrases ("we'll round them up", "we'll smoke them out" - I know he's from Texas, but am I watching the world news, or reruns of 'Rawhide'?) and didn't choose to act so impulsively, then we might have a bit more enthusiasm about it all.

But so far, it's just more politics....

1st off: having france, and Iraq against it doesn't exactly mean the UN wasn't backing it, keep in mind that it was Clintons screwup that Saddam wasn't takin' care of years ago, now they just cleaned up Clintons screwup.
I kinda like how dubbya doesn'tgo out of his way to make everything he says sound absolutely perfect, I think's it's nice to have a prez that'll be himself.

This post is IMO
Thanks for reading.

 

[Planteon]

Yes, good riddance, but...
:colorless Isn't it ironic that it was the US that backed & supported Saddam during his early years of power (including the Iran-Iraq war)?
:colorless Isn't it peculiar that the US + Coalition forces can find a guy hiding in a hole in the ground, but not being able to find a single of all those weapons of mass destruction?
:colorless Isn't it weird that so many Americans actually belive that there is a proven link between Saddam and the atrocities of Sept 11 2001?

 

[treecko_332]

one thing: there is no proof that Iraq even has has weapons of mass destruction, so I wouldn't be suprised if they didn't

 

[jdb728]

one thing: there is no proof that Iraq even has has weapons of mass destruction, so I wouldn't be suprised if they didn't

What about the chemical weapons they were shooting at US soldiers?

Yes, good riddance, but...
Isn't it ironic that it was the US that backed & supported Saddam during his early years of power (including the Iran-Iraq war)?

Perhaps, but was Saddam an evil vindictive dictator(who would have anyone who disagreed with him killed) at that time?

Isn't it peculiar that the US + Coalition forces can find a guy hiding in a hole in the ground, but not being able to find a single of all those weapons of mass destruction?

That is strange, but remember, it doesn't have to be a nuke to be a "weapon of mass destruction".

Isn't it weird that so many Americans actually belive that there is a proven link between Saddam and the atrocities of Sept 11 2001?

I don't know, but there might be a link, there might not be, I wouldn't be suprised if there was though.


This post is IMO
Thanks for reading.

 

[PokePop]

Well, perhaps, but Saddam should have been takin' out a long time ago, Bush was just cleaning up Clintons mistake...
1st off: having france, and Iraq against it doesn't exactly mean the UN wasn't backing it, keep in mind that it was Clintons screwup that Saddam wasn't takin' care of years ago, now they just cleaned up Clintons screwup.
I kinda like how dubbya doesn'tgo out of his way to make everything he says sound absolutely perfect, I think's it's nice to have a prez that'll be himself.

Excuse me, but... Bwahahaha!

Cleaning up and ex-president's mistakes, yes. But wrong ex-president.
Try Bush Sr.
He had Saddam in a box, the country had risen up in revolt (at his urging, I might add!) and what does he do?
Pack up and go home! @_o
His generals practically fell out of their tanks trying to plead with him to let them finish the job.

As for any kind of argument that the UN backed this move: Have you actually been in this country with access to news for this past year?

You can argue that Bush was right or wrong, or that he was enforcing earlier UN editcts, but I've never heard anyone argue that the UN backed this action at this time.

And as for Saddam using weapons of mass distruction on our troops as proof that he had them (in 2003); while Saddam threw WMDs at the troops 10 years ago, I beg you to cite one reference to their use this year. One cite. That's all I ask for.

 

[jdb728]

Excuse me, but... Bwahahaha!

Cleaning up and ex-president's mistakes, yes. But wrong ex-president.
Try Bush Sr.
He had Saddam in a box, the country had risen up in revolt (at his urging, I might add!) and what does he do?
Pack up and go home! @_o
His generals practically fell out of their tanks trying to plead with him to let them finish the job.

Thanks for the correction, my mistake.

As for any kind of argument that the UN backed this move: Have you actually been in this country with access to news for this past year?

You can argue that Bush was right or wrong, or that he was enforcing earlier UN editcts, but I've never heard anyone argue that the UN backed this action at this time.

I realize that the UN wasn't unanamously for goin' into Iraq, but then again, there were quite a few countries backin' the US.
Besides, of course it won't be unanimous when you allow the representitive for Iraq to take part(I apoligize if I'm wrong, but I don't believe I am).

And as for Saddam using weapons of mass distruction on our troops as proof that he had them (in 2003); while Saddam threw WMDs at the troops 10 years ago, I beg you to cite one reference to their use this year. One cite. That's all I ask for.

Sorry, but I don't have every bit of news from ever since we started invading Iraq memorized, or even just all the info concerning Iraq.

 

[PokePop]

I know. But I only asked for one. That's reasonable, isn't it?

And it was almost unanimous. Against.
It was pretty much the US and Britian against the rest of the security council.
The general assembly doesn't really count in these things, but if you were to count up the votes there, they were overwhelmingly against as well.

Not 60-40 or even 70-30. More like 90-10 against.

Again, I'm not argueing whether it was justified or not. I'll leave that to others. But there was no UN backing for it.

 

[Planteon]

What about the chemical weapons they were shooting at US soldiers?

As far as I remember there has not been any proven use of chemical weapons this time - but if you have proof of it, please point me to it.

Perhaps, but was Saddam an evil vindictive dictator(who would have anyone who disagreed with him killed) at that time?

Unfortunately, yes... It was only during the time that the US backed Saddam that he actually used chemical weapons (against Kurds and Iranians), and his brutality was quite consistent throughout his time of power - that's why most people are pleased to se him gone.

I don't know, but there might be a link, there might not be, I wouldn't be suprised if there was though.

Now, this is what amazes me, why should there be a link?

I realize that the UN wasn't unanamously for goin' into Iraq, but then again, there were quite a few countries backin' the US.

Well, it depends on what part of the UN that you talk about, in the 15 member Security council, US were only backed by UK, Spain and Bulgaria, in the 191 member General assembly the majority against military action in Iraq was even more overwhelming.

 

[Cyrus]

Now, I'm taking a look at this, and I seriously want to snicker a bit. Here's the thing: WHO CARES ABOUT THE UN?! Nowadays, they're basically the League of Nations, just with sugar on top. It's a failed establishment that, while does some good stuff, is enslaved by special interests.

~Nothing proven. Just a hit-and-run IMO by Patriarch

 

[baby*j]

I wish they'd caught Osama instead. Saddam doesn't really pose an immediate threat.

He didn't attack the United States and kill 3016 people on September 11th.

 

[jdb728]

I wish they'd caught Osama instead. Saddam doesn't really pose an immediate threat.

He didn't attack the United States and kill 3016 people on September 11th.

Yes, but it's not like he was raping, terrorizing and killing numerous people all the time, and killing anyone who oppossed him, oh wait, he was doin' that.

I mean, I believe they should be focusing alot of attention to finding osama, but I also think it was right to go free all those Iraqi's from dictatership.

I agree whole heartidly with Patriarch.

This post is IMO
Thanks for reading.

 

[PokePop]

Yes, but it's not like he was raping, terrorizing and killing numerous people all the time, and killing anyone who oppossed him, oh wait, he was doin' that.

I mean, I believe they should be focusing alot of attention to finding osama, but I also think it was right to go free all those Iraqi's from dictatership.

I agree whole heartidly with Patriarch.

This post is IMO
Thanks for reading.

Yeah, he was a real nasty guy.
So are a lot of world leaders.
Should we topple all of them too?
And if we do, what standing do we have to tell others that they have no right trying to topple our government because they think we are evil?

And a lot of these third world countries DO think we are evil!

the problem is that we have now lost the moral high ground.
We are a vigilante and cannot complain about any other government taking vigilante action anymore.
We've lost that.
It's not a little thing.