...captured. Story here.
Saddam Hussein...
- Thread starter Borsk
- Start date
Darth Aussie
Australian Sith Lord
Yeah hope they get him soon....
Dark Jedi
Banned
Maybe they will, maybe they won't....I don't give a damn simply because I am good at not giving a damn:rock:...Well the guy is retarded....Saddam had two small guns down there that were loaded, but he was too busy sh!tin' 'is pants in fear that he din't fire a single shot....you realize that for about 20 years Bush backed Saddam....Retard....
:guns: <---that's what I would be doing if I was Saddam....
:guns: <---that's what I would be doing if I was Saddam....
Zepp
Interstellar Buccaneer
It was the US that backed Saddam.
And they backed him for two primary reasons, he was the leader of, technically speaking, a secular democracy in the middle of the Middle East and he was opposed to Soviet Communism... the perfect ally in the Cold War. Communism fell and Saddam tried to cash in because he was on the winning side, the US didn't like that and Bush Sr. needed higher approval ratings... the Gulf War...
Then, after the war Saddam was put in a tight pickle, he needed to get rid of his WMDs but if he did the surrounding countries would see him as ripe pickings. Thus the deception mechanism was formulated. Whether he was trying to make it appear as if he had no weapons but actually did, which dubya claims, or he tried to make it appear as if he was hiding weapons but the weapons did not in fact exist, as Blix contends; is one of the most contraversial subjects out right now.
Since then slander has been mixed heavily into the American and in general Western media turning civil wars to masacres of peaceful uprisings, created stashes of nuclear weapons that never existed and implied that there was no doubt that he had WMDs...
Now he has been caught, and is either going to be tried by the losing side of the civil wars or by the vindictive US...
That's all fine and good, but the fact remains that Saddam has done enough bad things over the years to deserve whatever end he gets (regardless of the WMD question). Bush used WMD as part of a list of reasons for the war, so it's unfortunate that the issue of what actually happened regarding those weapons isn't clear.
Darth Aussie
Australian Sith Lord
From the atrocities he has caused, he deserves everything he gets...:guns:
Barada
Saboteur
Nightwing, political discussions like this tend to get heated, so while I see your point, it's coming across as a little argumentative.
You are very correct about a number of points, such as the U.S. having a much larger arsenal of WMD than the rest of the world, and that many children died in the Gulf War.
Now let's put some of this into perspective. I don't believe for a second that the Americans have any intention to launch their nuclear missiles into any country that doesn't share their philosophy on life. One cannot be so sure with a person like Hussein, who has been well documented in his chemical attacks on neighbouring countries and his ruthless, sadistic methods used on his prisoners. WMD in America can be viewed as a method of intimidation by some people, while the same in the hands of dictators like Saddam are bombs just waiting to find their first target.
As far as children dying in war, let's look at a couple of points. First of all, you bring up a war that occurred over a decade ago, and should not be compared to this past year's events. Second, do you really believe that Bush Sr. had full intentions to kill innocent men, women, and children in the name of war? Certainly he didn't, not like the suicide bombers that took out the WTC knowing that it was not a military target at all. Now, as horrible as it sounds, innocent people die in war. If Saddam insisted on launching his anti-aircraft missiles and other weapons from the middle of Baghdad, then HE brought the war into civilian territory.
Unfortunately, the same could come true if Bin Laden were to be found in the middle of a large urban centre. It would be a difficult situation. Do you take him at whatever cost, or ask him nicely to please run into the closest field for easy capture?
There are many innocent victims in war. If a war broke out in the streets of New York, or Los Angeles, (or Glasgow for that matter), many of our innocents would die also.
The fact is, Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who was a threat to world peace, and having him captured makes our lives just that little bit safer. The people if Iraq sure seem to be happy about it
Barada
You are very correct about a number of points, such as the U.S. having a much larger arsenal of WMD than the rest of the world, and that many children died in the Gulf War.
Now let's put some of this into perspective. I don't believe for a second that the Americans have any intention to launch their nuclear missiles into any country that doesn't share their philosophy on life. One cannot be so sure with a person like Hussein, who has been well documented in his chemical attacks on neighbouring countries and his ruthless, sadistic methods used on his prisoners. WMD in America can be viewed as a method of intimidation by some people, while the same in the hands of dictators like Saddam are bombs just waiting to find their first target.
As far as children dying in war, let's look at a couple of points. First of all, you bring up a war that occurred over a decade ago, and should not be compared to this past year's events. Second, do you really believe that Bush Sr. had full intentions to kill innocent men, women, and children in the name of war? Certainly he didn't, not like the suicide bombers that took out the WTC knowing that it was not a military target at all. Now, as horrible as it sounds, innocent people die in war. If Saddam insisted on launching his anti-aircraft missiles and other weapons from the middle of Baghdad, then HE brought the war into civilian territory.
Unfortunately, the same could come true if Bin Laden were to be found in the middle of a large urban centre. It would be a difficult situation. Do you take him at whatever cost, or ask him nicely to please run into the closest field for easy capture?
There are many innocent victims in war. If a war broke out in the streets of New York, or Los Angeles, (or Glasgow for that matter), many of our innocents would die also.
The fact is, Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who was a threat to world peace, and having him captured makes our lives just that little bit safer. The people if Iraq sure seem to be happy about it
Barada
so, the states should get rid of all of their weapons and let people like saddam do what ever they likes? get real
we were supposed to leave saddam alone? maybe since the states have the power, the states should take more of the responsilbilty for taking care of things like this.
were we supposed to sit around another 12 years waiting on the UN to get off it's butt and do something when the result would most likely be the same?
is it the states fault that that saddam placed all of his weapons in hospitals and schools? the finger is being pointed in the wrong direction. it is unfortunate but let's move some of this blame where it belongs.
Since this WAS A WAR, the amount of lives lost is extremely low. how many of thos lives would have still been lost if saddam was left in power?
does any one person in the states have the power to use WMD? NO ........ could the same be said about Iraq? NO
I know i sound like i am pro-war and i am not, but some of the ideas in this thread bother me and for that sake, i am taking this position. The war has already happened ...... nothing can change that now. the best thing now is to follow through make it worth while and getting saddam was a big step in that direction.
we were supposed to leave saddam alone? maybe since the states have the power, the states should take more of the responsilbilty for taking care of things like this.
were we supposed to sit around another 12 years waiting on the UN to get off it's butt and do something when the result would most likely be the same?
is it the states fault that that saddam placed all of his weapons in hospitals and schools? the finger is being pointed in the wrong direction. it is unfortunate but let's move some of this blame where it belongs.
Since this WAS A WAR, the amount of lives lost is extremely low. how many of thos lives would have still been lost if saddam was left in power?
does any one person in the states have the power to use WMD? NO ........ could the same be said about Iraq? NO
I know i sound like i am pro-war and i am not, but some of the ideas in this thread bother me and for that sake, i am taking this position. The war has already happened ...... nothing can change that now. the best thing now is to follow through make it worth while and getting saddam was a big step in that direction.
It would seem to me that you think that bush can walk down the hall to his "blow the world up room" and and press the "blow up the world button" and be done with it. Is that what you think? I know you are anti-states and that's fine, but you used to live here for a while, do you not have any idea how the government works?
what is your suggestion on how to deal with that issue?
Nightwing
New Recruit
I am not Anti-American. I have many American Friends. What I am though, is Anti-American Goverent. I think there's a big difference.
The thing that annoys me, is that people automatically assume if yu are anti-war, you are pro-Saddam.
How does the American goverment work. yes, I know it's an old example, but having a president who wasn't elected into office by the people?
I posted the last piece before seeing barada's, and I will not post anymore because I do not want our different opinions to get in the way of friendship.
we all have our own ideas and i doubt any of us will change each others mind's. The thing that irritates me most is when people (not here in the forums although it is here to some degree) take a fraction of what happened and turn it into the meaning behind it all. What irritates me even more than that is that I am probably just as guilty about doing that as anyone else.
to nightwing and the election process. i will not even try and argue about how official are elected. you don't have to win the popular vote to win the election and i'm ok with that at the moment. that was not my point though ..... my point was that Bush can't do much of anything w/o the approval of congress. That's another thing that irritates me is that i see people saying things that makes it appear that Bush is this big bad guy who just runs around doing whatever he wants. The president can't start a war w/o congress (a whole bunch of other ellected officials) saying it's ok with them. In fact congress gave their approval well before bush ever did anything. So we're talking about a bunch of elected officals that have to agree that is what we're going to do.
i don't think that war is the best way to resolve problems but sometimes there are no other options. It was obvious that no one else was going to do anything about it and i am proud of what the *coalition* accomplished.
to nightwing and the election process. i will not even try and argue about how official are elected. you don't have to win the popular vote to win the election and i'm ok with that at the moment. that was not my point though ..... my point was that Bush can't do much of anything w/o the approval of congress. That's another thing that irritates me is that i see people saying things that makes it appear that Bush is this big bad guy who just runs around doing whatever he wants. The president can't start a war w/o congress (a whole bunch of other ellected officials) saying it's ok with them. In fact congress gave their approval well before bush ever did anything. So we're talking about a bunch of elected officals that have to agree that is what we're going to do.
i don't think that war is the best way to resolve problems but sometimes there are no other options. It was obvious that no one else was going to do anything about it and i am proud of what the *coalition* accomplished.
[begin admin speak]
Like Barada said, this topic can get heated. As long as people don't start seriously verbally abusing each other, I don't have a problem with it. If you have more to say, say it.
[/end admin speak]
----
The topic of this thread was only about Saddam being captured. That's it. Just take it for what it is and enjoy it. There's no reason to bring up every stupid thing the U.S. has ever done to make what should be a positive thing a negative.
---
It seems to me that most of the civilian deaths in "Desert Storm" occurred because of strategies taken by Saddam and others to keep us from striking military targets (by moving them to civilian centers). At best, you can say that the U.S. and Iraq share blame for those deaths - you can't put it all on the U.S. The alternative is having the U.S. lose the lives of its military personal because they're being overly cautious. Neither option is tremendously appealing, but I think you have to do everything you can to protect your own people.
The only point this is making is that people die in wars. At what age is it "okay" to die in a war? It's basically unavoidable that non-combat personal will die in war. (side note: I thought you were going to get into the children dieing because of U.N. sanctions which is a whole other can of worms)
---
The comment about Bush not being the "real" president is a dead end. It makes me wonder about any political party bias that you have - which is going to weaken your opinion (to me) if it appears that you're close-minded on the subject of affiliation.
---
Yeah, it'd be nice if the U.S. could totally disarm and not have to worry about a thing, but that's not the world we live in.
---
Try this one out: If you were the U.S. president, what would you have done following the World Trade Center attack? What do you think Gore would have done? Would it have been any better?
Like Barada said, this topic can get heated. As long as people don't start seriously verbally abusing each other, I don't have a problem with it. If you have more to say, say it.
[/end admin speak]
----
The topic of this thread was only about Saddam being captured. That's it. Just take it for what it is and enjoy it. There's no reason to bring up every stupid thing the U.S. has ever done to make what should be a positive thing a negative.
---
It seems to me that most of the civilian deaths in "Desert Storm" occurred because of strategies taken by Saddam and others to keep us from striking military targets (by moving them to civilian centers). At best, you can say that the U.S. and Iraq share blame for those deaths - you can't put it all on the U.S. The alternative is having the U.S. lose the lives of its military personal because they're being overly cautious. Neither option is tremendously appealing, but I think you have to do everything you can to protect your own people.
The only point this is making is that people die in wars. At what age is it "okay" to die in a war? It's basically unavoidable that non-combat personal will die in war. (side note: I thought you were going to get into the children dieing because of U.N. sanctions which is a whole other can of worms)
---
The comment about Bush not being the "real" president is a dead end. It makes me wonder about any political party bias that you have - which is going to weaken your opinion (to me) if it appears that you're close-minded on the subject of affiliation.
---
Yeah, it'd be nice if the U.S. could totally disarm and not have to worry about a thing, but that's not the world we live in.
---
Try this one out: If you were the U.S. president, what would you have done following the World Trade Center attack? What do you think Gore would have done? Would it have been any better?