Saddam Hussein Arrested

MoonChild was the first of hundreds to submit that MSNBC, ABCNews and others are reporting that Saddam Hussein was arrested. This isn't normal Slashdot subject matter, but I figured it was worth mentioning.

Comments

Re:Naysayers

[NMerriam]

Note: Anti-War is not the same as Pro-Saddam.

GOOD JOB GUYS!!!!

Re:bin laden..

[Richard Allen]

There is still a lot that needs to be done.
But, that shouldn't take away from the tremendous victory of the Iraqis and the Americans here.
Some people are perpetually negative. This is a great moment for these people. Relish in it. Stop looking for something to whine about ... please!

Congratulations Iraq! Congratulations US coalition!

No connection

[bgfay]

Keep in mind folks that this has absolutely nothing to do with September 11. Sure, a dictator is out of power. That's fine. Remember though that to topple him, our government invaded a sovereign nation without international support or a plan for after the initial attacks. The administration is going to spin this as a wonderful thing for Americans and a sure sign that the administration is tough on terrorists. This isn't the war on terrorism (as ill-thought as that war is). It's the war on Iraq that was started many years ago by the father and now reengaged by the son. Nothing more. Iraqi citizens may rejoice, but there is no reason for us to do the same.

Re:No connection

[bgfay]

Ridiculous. I in no way advocate the suppression of anyone's human rights. Nor do I advocate the brutal attack of any nation in order to "save" the people from a dicatorship. George Bush's foreign policy states that the US can invade when it feels that the justfication is there or that the justfication may soon be there. That's a horrendous, dangerous and absurd policy based largely on hubris.

As for not recognizing the sovereignty of a nation that doesn't recognize the liberty of its people, then you may not want to become a US citizen any time soon. The current US administration places many things higher on its list of priorities than it does the notion of personal liberty. Ask John Ashcroft. Ask the detainees in Guantanamo. Ask the thousands of people held in American jails without habeus corpus on the suspicion of terror sympathy.

The US government DID invade a soveriegn nation. It did so without international support. It did so in violation of international law. The means, especially in this case, do not justify the ends.

Re:No connection

[blastedtokyo]

Jews in the holocaust. Ethnic cleansing in eastern europe. Genocide in somalia and other african warzones. Chinese college students murdered in plain public view. North Koreans who aren't in the miliary starving, working in camps.

If you're one of these suffering people, it's your sovereign government that's probably going to kill you. If you plainly respect the soverign government, the people die. I'd rather take down a man made notion of government than let masses of innocent people die.

Good. So?

[Ringel]

Capturing Saddam is a good thing. He's a Very Bad Man(tm).

The fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with...
Al-Qaeda,
making America safer,
the War On Terrorism,
WMDs,
or any of that other stuff aside, yes, he's a Very Bad Man(tm).

Bush &c. will get an approval bump out of this, right up until the next terrorist attack, when it is plainly shown that the whole Iraq boondoggle was an expensive distraction so that W could feel like a man, and so that people wouldn't ask questions about the actual problem.

Classic misdirection

[Faust7]

While I am thankful that Saddam Hussein was captured, my foil hat -- which has been tuned to "non-paranoid" mode -- can't help but think that it serves a dual purpose for the Bush administration.

Were we able to find Osama bin Laden? No. The war on terror, originated in Afghanistan, was in danger of stagnating, with a conclusion that lacked the novelistic roundless of rounding up the enemy leader.

The focus of the war on terror was thusly shifted to Iraq. "There are connections," they said, which meant the war would really be over when Hussein was taken.

Now he has been. He, not bin Laden, will be at the forefront of millions of Americans' minds, seen as a defeated figurehead for terrorist activity -- despite the fact that he was not responsible for 9/11.

And this means re-election.

Re:Classic misdirection

[BFKrew]

The 'War on Terror' cannot be won by capturing anyone! You can only 'win' by solving the problems that only serve to create more and more terrorists.

Re:Classic misdirection

[arevos]

What problem could we have solved that would have prevented Osama Bin Laden being a terrorist?

Are you joking? The US had a large hand in training much of the resistance force in Afghanistan, including Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK), of which Osama was the head. Osama later split from MAK and established al-Qaida. So the US's efforts gave a lot toward Osama's current terror regime. It's also hard to be friendly toward a force that uses you to fight for them. The Afghanistan rebels were useful to the US as long as they fought the Soviets. When they didn't need them anymore, the US left, leaving Afghanistan in ruins and paving the way for the Taliban and worse.

According to Wikipedia, Osama's main beef with the US is it's support of Saudi Arabia monarchy, which, if you'll pardon a cliche, was largely supported due to it's oil reserves. Osama is, of course, a psychopath, but that doesn't mean that the US didn't have a hand in the creation of the terrorist leader we know today.

9/11 didn't occur because of something we did, it happened simply because of what we were. A successful, free, secular society.

Almost all modern terrorism is due to US foreign policy. It is not because terrorists "hate freedom". That is, franky an extremely naive view of the world, seperating people into blank and white views of "good" and "bad".

This War on Terror can be won and will be by acting decisively and crushing them all.

Even more naive. By "acting decisively and crushing them all" you only incite more people to harm the US. As a UK citizen, I've seen what happened when terrorism was tackled by force. It increased. Whilst terrorism must not be tolerated, a "War on Terror" is going to be as successful as the US "War on Drugs".

Are you a troll, or just incredibly uninformed?

Re:Classic misdirection

[BFKrew]

I am a Brit and have been in Manchester when we've been bombed by the IRA, who incidentally received a lot of funding in the US. I can absolutely assure you it's scary when you know poeple from school who get scarred for life from flying glass. Of course it is wrong and immoral to blow up innocent people and I cannot understand their mentality. However, they do NOT see it as wrong! We went for years where we used to increase the agression in pursuing them IRA and Loyalist terrorists. We were more brutal, we policed harder, we vowed never to give in. They tried to blow up our Government, we stepped up the patrols and made life harder. We killed people who protested sometimes and sometimes killed people at checkpoints. Still the attacks continued. The only thing which has helped the situation is by talking, engaging and starting to dismantle the reasons which fire their anger and aggression. If you think that bombing and hunting people solves the problem I can tell you from our experiences that you bettre get used to facing years and years of terrorist actions.

Re:who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

No doubt that many Iraqis are happy about Saddam being captured, but please be a little more sceptic about what you see on TV. Remember the staged destruction of the Saddam statue? Even without explicitly arranging things to transport a certain message, cameras lie by choosing angles and avoiding others. Yeah, I know IHBT.

Re:who cares?

[squarooticus]

Who is modding this stuff up to "insightful"?

If you aren't Arab (and in this case, Arab isn't equivalent to Muslim), you probably don't understand the honor structure of those people. In this case, while Saddam remained free and was able to demonstrate his strength by surviving and directing attacks against coalition forces, his former Ba'ath party supporters were willing to fight for him.

With him captured, you can expect to see the vast majority of the domestic Iraqi resistance disappear.

The foreign (i.e., Syrian and Iranian) destabilization efforts will continue until a effective domestic police force exists.

Re:Not bad.

[NeuroManson]

We went in because he was involved in 9/11- Whoops, nevermind.

We went in because he has weapons of mass- Damn. Nevermind.

We went in because he's really bad, okay? Just wave your plastic American flag, citizen, go back to bed. All is well. The monitors are your friends.

Re:bin laden..

[cloricus]

Note that the Kurds gave the American's the tip of and by "we" I hope you don't just mean America but every one who has fought and died to make this happen?

See no evil, hear no evil...

[WIAKywbfatw]

1. "Hundreds of thousands" might be a slight exaggeration.

2. All that went on with the blessing of the US, UK and the most of rest of the world.

Lest you forget, it was left to organisations like CND to point out that Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons on Kurdish settlements whilst countries like the US stuck their collective fingers in their ears, repeatedly chanted "la-la-la, I'm not listening", and pretended that the whole thing never happened.

You see, back then Saddam Hussein was a Good Guy (TM), because he was fighting those nasty Ayatollahs in Iran that gave the US such a bloody nose at the start of the 1980s. That he was a brutal dictator didn't matter then because he was the West's brutal dictator.

Perhaps you should switch off Fox News, pick up a history book, and ask yourself why it took the Gulf War and this latest War on Terrorism to bring his activities to your attention. For bonus points, find out where else this kind of oppression is going on and how long it's been ignored by the Western world.

Re:See no evil, hear no evil...

[WIAKywbfatw]

In spite of your assertions, the United States only provided Saddam with around 1% of his armaments during the period from 1973-1992.

Ignoring all other assistance (intelligence, etc) that's still 1 percent too much, isn't it? If not, what percentage would you consider to be OK before a nation becomes culpable for assisting that regime? 5 percent? 10? 20? It must be nice to be able to pretend that assisting an oppressive regime doesn't matter as long as you don't help them too much.

He was not placed in power by the U.S. and the U.K. and he helped turn back the Ayatollah and, ultimately, the spread of Soviet influence in the Middle East.

So you admit he was used by successive US administrations who were willing to turn a blind eye to his "extra-curricular" activities?

"...In the early 1970s, there were about 40 democracies in the world. By the middle of that decade, Portugal and Spain and Greece held free elections. Soon there were new democracies in Latin America, and free institutions were spreading in Korea, in Taiwan, and in East Asia..."

Just what does the fall of General Franco in Spain, etc have to do with your argument? Are you suggesting the conversion of Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc to democracies had something to do with US intervention? Was Franco killed by an exploding CIA cigar? I think not.

As for those "new democracies in Latin America", please, don't make me laugh. The US's record in Latin America is laughable, such as the 1973 CIA-backed coup in Chile that overthrew the democratically elected President President Salvador Allende in favour of a facist dictator, General Augusto Pinochet, who then proceeded to tortured and murdered tens of thousands. If that's the kind of example you want to bring up of how the US helps bring self-determination to the world then perhaps you want to think twice.

The facts are clear: when Saddam Hussein was murdering his people, the West stood by and watched, happy in the knowledge that he was being just as brutal towards Iranians as he was to his fellow Iraqis.

Re:Iraqi, U.S., or international trial appropriate

[k98sven]

Considering the crimes Saddam Hussein has committed against people of several countries, would it not be logical for his ultimate trial to be held in the form of an international war crimes tribunal, a la Nuremberg?

Yes it would. There already is such a court, the International Criminal Court..
The problem is, the USA opposes it.

This was not always the case; Funny you mention Nuremburg, where the american procecuter Robert Jackson expressed a desire to create such a permanent tribunal.

I feel that is the America the world admired and respected.
Todays unilateral foreign policy is a shame on America, and the ideals America is supposed to represent. And it is the reason why the USA no long commands the same international respect.

The Election's over...

[BTWR]

Well, Election 2004 ended this morning. Like him or not, Bush is the man right now. He accomplished his goal, and a grand victory is always embraced by a leader's people. Dean's whole schtick was anti-war. While there still are merits to being anti-war (men/women killed, cost $$$, no WMD), Dean just lost his biggest stance against the war: that it hasn't truly accomplished anything.

That picture of Saddam in a disgusting non-bathed attire, dirt-filled beard will be remembered forever.

Plus, his trial for crimes against humanity will probably begin just around November 2004 (yeah yeah, cue trolls calling for "America's crimes against humanity, etc...")

Re:The Election's over...

[Scrameustache]

Based on today's events, I feel that Bush is the guy that will protect America (and her allies). If you go after America, we'll get you.

OMG!

When, exactly WHEN did Saddam "go after America"?
When, and how?

Saddam was all cozy in his little kindom, not having any weapons of mass destruction or anything, and Bush decided to go after Iraq, not the other way around. He did it for many reasons: Oil, a distraction from internal scrutiny, a well known villain, but NOT because Saddam attacked America, because he never did.

Re:who cares?

[prisonernumber7]

(*) Disclaimer: I'm no prophet, so please take my post with a grain of salt.

The international press (for example the press in my country, Austria) is assuming the opposite to happen. And I share their view. Central Europe believes these assaults to happen because the Iraquis would prefer the US to move out of their country.

With Saddam Hussain being put on display in a humiliative fashion - him playing the role of a broken man whose two sons have been killed by the very forces that now have control of his life - this might anger those who lead these assaults even more.

The situation down there is not a beautiful one; the rest of the world blames the many problems on the Bush administration. We are sincerely hoping that you will vote their asses out of office next time and elect somebody with a finer understanding of the world into what's easily the world's most important political function. The rest of the world needs a different US. You might not care, tho - but I for one hope you do.

Everybody deserves a fair trial -- look at Germany

[koi88]

Everybody deserves a fair trial. That's what democratic states promise to their citizens, and their enemies.

This basic right used to by highly valued in the US, too. Of course, now suspects are declared "terrorists" and put away to Guantanamo and other places, or left to "friendly" governments for torturing.

The very reason that a few days ago a suspect 9/11-collaborator was set free by the court was a lack of proof against him (likely the US' fault for not allowing an important witness to testify because said witness is "interrogated" by the CIA at an unknown location).
In Germany, at least, people can be sure not to be held prisoner without evidence.

The value of democratic principles can be seen best whan you look at how a state treats its enemies.

Re:bin laden..

[nyseal]

It's not irrelevent to the people of Iraq. Try to explain to a widow of a Saddam victim that the war is illegal.

Re:Anti War IS Pro Saddam

[hey!]

The so-called "anti war movement" in the West is very pro-Saddam. They opposed efforts to get him out of power, or even dent his power. If the "anti-war" people had their way, Saddam would still be filling mass graves.

This attitude really reminds me of working with my business partner.

Some years ago I introduced him to the term "opportunity cost". He immediately took it to mean the exact opposite of what it does. It is supposed to represent the lost revenue you get by going after a lesser opportunity when it interferes with pursuing a better one. He still thinks it is the opportunities you "lost" by not trying to do everything at once.

I was very anti-war and very anti-Sadaam at the same time, but for this reason. If there were nothing else on our agenda at the time, then by all means I would have supported taking Sadaam out. But after 9/11 we had a unique, once in a generation chance to unite the world in the pursuit of freedom and democracy. Now the action we've taken in the name of freedom and democracy have united freedom's opponents as never before and divided its proponents. This is to say nothing of Al Qaeda or North Korea.

I agree, Sadaam was evil. He should have been removed. But power has its limitations. You can't acheive everything at once. With patience and strategy, we could have removed him, at lower cost, not just in money but to our long term interests and to the interests of humanity at large. Granted, Iraqis would have unfairly borne the cost of Sadaam's regime for some months longer. It wouldn't have been fair to them. But we are now in a precarious and risky situation, and others may suffer if luck is not with us. It's not going to be fair to them either.

I'm glad he was taken out of power. I'm glad he was caught, and that he will be brought to justice. I am optimistic by by nature and continue to hope for the best. If Bush and America are very, very lucky, or if we begin to be a lot more skillful in our affairs, things may yet turn out brilliantly. However I think it was a very unwise course of action.

Re:who cares?

[Pavan_Gupta]

Your first question needs to be asked again --

If you've been watching the news and White House propoganda of late, you'll know that the major forces that have organized behind attacks against coalition forces have been those forces that arrived from out of the country. It's not some disbanded Ba'ath party members that suicide bombing the country side, but it's crazed militants from around the middle east.

The capture of saddam will probably provide some superficial relief, and will likely setup a nice facade to help ease reelection tensions, but more than that -- it's a relatively mute point. Nothing can come of it besides some happiness that hundreds of billions of dollars can go to capturing someone that was already deposed.

And moreover, the questions begs to be asked: where the hell is Osama? The man needs a DIALYSIS MACHINE! That's not some simple tool, or small for that matter. I'm angry that we've invested so much time in other countries, but Bush wants us to forget the real criminal behind 9/11.

Well, you be satisifed with this capture of Saddam. I'll be angry that we paid 25 million USD for a figure head, and a good ol' fashioned taste of Nazi propoganda. Where's Osama?!

Re:Good.

[_Sprocket_]

Good points. But for the sake of conversation, I'd like to make some counter-points...

doubtful. not all the opposition is saddam supporters. there are islamic terrorists that want to setup another afghanstan, probably some shiites wanting to setup a iran-type islamic gov't, maybe some sunni's and maybe some kurds.

At the same time, Saddam was a symbol. Capturing him is also symbolic - that this regime is not going to return. This may hearten the Iraqi people. And those who feared such a return and kept silent while resistance / terrorists operated amoung them.

And it isn't the attacks that are keeping us there, we have to be there through the setup of the country and to fix a lot of things we broke in a couple of wars (and even more things saddam broke through neglect).

Actually - I have to disagree with this. The longer these attacks keep up, the longer US and its allies will remain in Iraq. True - the goal is to rebuild Iraq, not wipe out insurgants. But Iraq can not be rebuilt while the infrastructure of a new government is picked apart by assasinations and sabotage.

Re:Over 61,000 people killed by a dictator...

[akepa]

No, because it isn't the reason Bush started this war. Mass-murdering dictators are a dime-a-dozen, unfortunately - there are many others besides Hussein. And the US doesn't hesitate to support them if it suits some politically expedient purpose(Saddam Hussein was supported by the US back in the 80's). China has been committing genocide in Tibet for decades and executes more people than the rest of the world combined - many of them "guilty" of nothing more than criticism of the state. Yet China enjoys "most-favored nation" trading status with the US.

Enough already

[Sycraft-fu]

Quit with the silly comments about Saddam not being linked to Al-Queda, or Bin Laden not being caught or WMDs and what have you. It is stupid. Don't pretend like you are The Great Enlightened One and the only person that can see the truth and the rest are mindless sheep.

Slashdot is a fairly sophisticated and educated crowd. Yes, we know that Bin Laden hasn't been located. Yes, we know Saddam isn't the head of Al-Queda. Yes, we know they haven't found WMDs in Iraq. None of that has ANYTHING to do with Saddam's capture and it is insulting that you think we need to be told.

That Saddam is captured is a good thing. Even if you hate Bush, think the war was wrong, unjustified and so on you cannot honestly say that the world is not a better place without him being a free man. Will this magically fix all the problems in Iraq? Of course not, doesn't mean it's still not important.

This is important if for no other reason than that we have a concept of justice, that people should pay for their crimes. Saddam now can be made to do that. He can be tried for what he's done. More important than any punishment itself is the process, society enforcing order and justice.

So knock it off with the stupid comments. We already know, and it's insulting and makes you look childish.

Re:Enough already

[JFMulder]

You're 100% right. What people don't like though is that people use this as an excuse to justify the war in Irak. Yes, it's a perfectly 100% good reason to go to war with Irak, these people deserved to be freed, and I'm glad they were, but don't think for a second that the US did this ONLY for the good of Irak's people.

I'm really happy for these people, but at the same time it's a shame that they weren't freed because they we're badly treated. Oil was always their #1 target. Freeing the people, WMD and false links to Al-Quada were only excuses to go there.

That's what sickens people. And we have every right to be. This isn't childish at all.

Strength and respect are not the same.

[aepervius]

Remmember Hitler & germany in 1937-1940 ? they had plenty of Strength. I am pretty sure nobody repected them really. but feared yes. Remmember Staline and the purge ? He had plenty of strength too. Are you respecting him ? Do you think the russian people at large are/were respecting him ?


Ther word you search for strength is NOT repsect. Respect comes from admiting the weak point and strong point of the other and admiting for a certain admiration of those point.

US is not respected. US 15 years ago might be. But thanks to a certain ... External politic and some pinch of bullying now the US is not respected. It is FEARED for its strength. See the two example above.

Fear and respect are quite not the same things, even if both lead you where you want to go. But remmember this : nothing is eternal. You recolt what you seed. If you think what is seeding right now the US is good, well good to you. I personally fear my kids will have to live "interresting years".

Re:Strength and respect are not the same.

[Bytal]

When Stalin died those hundreds of thousands of people on the streets weren't there by force, the country was so brainwashed that people cried truthfully. You can still find WW2 veterans who see him as a God, even after seeing their own friends and family killed or iomprisoned for life. If you want a nice English explanation of the real horror of the Soviet regime, read the last part of "1984" where the difference between the Inquisition, the fascists and communists is explained.

And with regard to America it is not about respect now, it's about other countries not having the same clout and failing even after starting a huge public relations battle against the US. It's interesting to note that the countries leading the anti-American/anti-Bush crusade are the ones who are most threatened by a strong US presence in various parts of the world. France isn't exactly falling over itself to go against America because of high moral values, rather it has to appear nice to it's large muslim population as well as making sure that it's not completely powerless in the new century.
As for Russia well I think anyone can see the huge insult that ignoring the wishes of an ex-world power would be to them. Not to mention that the presence of large amounts of American troops in areas which they historically had a lot of influence in and which they had always supported and strategically valued is just something they have to control if they wish to keep any kind of status or power in the region.

There are very few countries opposing Bush for humanitarian reason, though they'd like the world to think so. They want to do the same exact thing America does, to have the military power to push their own interests and the economic power to control all the emerging countries. I mean everyone calls the US imperialistic and bent of waging illegal wars yet no one remembers French atrocities against Algerians who wanted their freedom. Or what exactly the French Foreign legion does in Africa or what the Russians do in Chechnya. In the end every government only thinks strategically, and anyone who thinks otherwise is either naive or a fool. While president's might spout great humanistic speaches or make up excuses about WMDs it's all about strategy. For the US is ideal strategy to be able to have a controlling circle of countries around Iran and to make sure potential terrorist bases are taken out where possible. It's strategically important to have a successfull non-Jewish democratic state in the region to act as an example, and it's strategically important to have army bases that are in well controlled countries instead of Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The other countries want the same things but don't have the clout, either military or financial to achieve them and that's why they are so against American dominance in the most energetically important region in the world. If I were Putin I'd be pissing in my pants about Bush or a Free Iraq throwing cheap Iraqi oil on the market, in one fell swoop killing the nascent Russian economy. If I were Chirac I'd be deathly afraid of my huge Arab population making trouble or of loosing hundreds of lucrative deals with embargoed governments in that region, I mean who would they supply nuclear reactors to, other then unstable maniacal leaders.

Re:bin laden..

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, the sanctions didn't hurt Saddam at all, because he was still living in a giant palace while having sugar blowed up his ass. That's the fucking point.

Don't tell me that you care about Iraqis when you let them die in the millions.

Re:Good.

[Homology]

Good news for Iraqis.

Undoubtly, and with some luck he will have a fair trial, in stark contrast to his own former justice system.

Hopefully, this will stop the attacks on the coalition troops

Hopefully, but very unlikely. Contrary to official propaganda not only Saddam loyalists, but also ordinary people are attacking the occupation forces. US disregard for civilians has made them quite a few enemies : Oh The LIttle Saddams We Weave The War on Iraq's Workers

and the US can pull out and let Iraq start setting up its own country.

US are already planning to have several permanent bases in Iraq, and are there to stay. And in the process install a puppet regime to protect their oil interests.

Re:who cares?

[Atryn]

What's important is not whether or not Saddam was controlling the cells from his spider hole... What is important is whether the cells thought he was controlling them.

A recent news story heard on NPR (I believe it was a Times reporter that had gotten in with a cell attacking US forces?) had Saddam loyalists flatly stating that, although the cells operated independently and did not know of other cells actions, they got their orders from a military structure that they believe was controlled by SH.

The hope would be, that with SH exposed and captured (and clearly not in command) that these cells will see they are being controlled by a military structure NOT under SH. In a perfect world, they would thus turn against that leadership...

Re:who cares?

[illuminata]

That goes both ways. It all depends on what the views of the people in control of the source are. Liberals show the liberal angle, conservatives show the conservative angle, so on and so forth.

Be careful to not imply that it's only the conservatives that do this.

Re:bin laden..

[NickFitz]

You are a fool and a bigot. The vast majority of Moslems have no truck with terrorism. In all my years reading Slashdot, I have never seen the sobriquet "Anonymous Coward" more aptly applied.

Re:bin laden..

[Martin Blank]

Osama bin Laden was not part of the CIA-backed Afghan mujahideen. He was part of the Arab component that was brought in to assist the Afghans, but he has hated the United States for a long time. He has never accepted backing from the US, and there have been several reports by journalists of the time that they had to remain hidden and not speak while in areas of Afghanistan under bin Laden's nominal control during the Soviet invasion.

He had no need for money or training from the US. He could get that with his own money.

Re:bin laden..

[Scrameustache]

Try to explain to a widow of a Saddam victim that the war is illegal.

Lets get her in a room with a widow of a Bush victim, get Gerry Springer in there, you got a show.

The war was illegal, the war was about weapons of mass destruction and after months of not finding any, they changed their story for "Booh Saddam! Bad bad Saddam!".

I see it worked great on some people...big powerpoint user are you?

Re:bin laden..

[CrowScape]

Slight (major) problem with the "illegal war" thing. At the end of Gulf War I, there was no peace treaty, only a cease fire (something of which we had a dozen or so of in Afghanistan alone during that war). It went along the lines of "disarm all WMDS and prove to our satisfaction the destruction of said WMDs and cease all hostilities and we won't finish the job." Since Saddam violated the cease fire on many counts and on many occasions, the only way the continuation of hostilities by the US could be considered an illegal war would be if the first Gulf War was itself illegal. Since that was done by the authority of the UN, that's highly unlikely, unless you doubt the authority of the UN, in which case there's no one to call any war illegal. But of course, this conflicts with your erotic anti-Bush world dreams, so I'm sure you won't let facts get in your way.

Re:bin laden..

[MrMr]

Don't worry, more than 70% of the US population is convinced they're the same person anyway...

Forgetting one or two things

[Zygote-IC-]

China has nuclear weapons.
Iraq does not.
Much easier to invade a country and get rid of some assholes when they can't turn you or your major cities into a radioactive cinder.
Oh and then there's that thing about having a bajillion troops.
Just a few small points to remember.

I doubt that Saddam's capture will provoke anger

[einhverfr]

But that does not mean that this will end the current resistance. It depends on who is right about what is really going on.

Theory 1: Saddam loyalists are attacking the Americans, et al. In this scenario, capturing Saddam weakens the resistance.

Theory 2: Outside terrorists are the main sponsors. In this scenario it makes NO DIFFERENCE where Saddam is captured or not.

Theory 3: The main rank and file of the resistance are formed by patriotic Iraqis who see themselves not as fighting for Saddam but rather as fighting for Iraqi independence. In this case, the arrest of Saddam removes a MAJOR obstacle to the resistance, namely the fear that by resisting, it will be allowing Saddam to come back to power.

The truth is probably a mixture of all three. The real danger in the arrest (not to say that I am opposed to the arrest, but let's not have rosy tinted glasses about the whole thing) is that it will take a resistance movement which has seen a growing mainstream patriotic wing and remove the final obstacle for the mainstream Iraqi to support it. In this case, it could mean that the war will simmer and slowly boil up.

This is not without precedent. Look into WWI and the experience of the British in the area that became Iraq.

media is media...

[ScottGant]

I've come to the conclusion that there is no "liberal media" nor a "conservative media". It's just "The Media"

There is no view they're trying to push, no idea they want people to follow...they're a shark that feeds on itself and will eat anything and everything in it's way.

They only look at the almighty dollar and only care how many people are watching so they can sell their ads. That's the bottom line. They will report on anything and everything...the more sensational the better. Facts rarely enter into the fray...just so long as they have a headline.

The government doesn't control them because if that were true, then that in itself would be a major story...that "CNN has evidence that FOX is controlled by X" or vice versa. Remember, they eat anything and everything.

Re:bin laden..

[aled]

It never cease to amaze how people doesn't care to know minimal facts before supporting every stupid wars. Let me give you some facts that you can check easily.

Facts:

Saddam Hussein was a cruel ruler that killed thousands of Kurds with gas.

Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi, like most of the 7-11 attack terrorists.

Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were know enemies, at least before this year.

Iraq had nothing to do with 7-11 attack. Even Paul Wolfowitz (deputy secretary of defense) can't say otherwise.

It's not know that Iraq had supported any terrorist attack in the world.

No massive destruction weapon was found yet in Iraq.

AFTER USA invaded Iraq Bin Laden supposedly made some speechs urging iraquies to fight against coalition forces.

Terrorism in Iraq started from null to today situation since President Bush anounced end of fights.

"Old Europe" countries foretold this situation will happen. USA reacted renaming french fries.

Of course Old Europe also had important economical interests an Iraq, like USA.

There a lot of other interesting facts that you could find if you ever care.

Re:Not bad.

[the_mad_poster]

You know, I'M getting tired of this crap about having to "pick one of the two".

The man is, quite simply, the truest form of a politician.

He's sleazy. We go to war with Afghanistan because Al Quaeda attacked us (let's not mention that we're taking that assertion that it was Al Quaeda on faith since the administration wouldn't share any of the "evidence" it magically had only hours after the attacks). Bin Laden, the psychofuck we're supposed to get, gets away. Solution? Look harder? No. Divert attention to Iraq. Pretend they have a current WMD program (again, present no [truthful] evidence), blow them the fuck up, and then, when you realize your ass is getting handed to you by all the people who want to see this Great Big Threat to America and all these WMDs, start pretending like you started yammering about all this a year ago because you wanted to "liberate" people.

Bull fucking shit. He knows damn well that Hussein is already a villian in everybody's minds and that he can back that up because the man IS a villian. He knows he can whip people into a frenzy every time he passes "ter'rism" through his lips and he can sweep his fuck-ups under the carpet by changing his story later.

You want to know why I hate him more than any recent prez in history? More than lying, two-faced, backstabbing Clinton? Because everytime I cried for evidence when the man started making claims, I got nasty looks from idiots who just wanted to hear that ter'rists were being taken out of their happy little world. When I start pointing out that the man has lied his way into two wars so far and changed the story or conveniently just closed the book halfway through, I get the same goddamn looks.

I'm tired of Bush apologists in particular and political apologists in general. The man doesn't know what the truth is and probably wouldn't know it if he choked on it watching football. He wasn't elected to push his own personal agendas, and I'm sick of it. The man is the epitomy of slimy politicians through and through. The fact that good things (like this) occasionally happen as a result of his constant fucking about doesn't excuse the fact that he's a sniveling, manipulative, two-faced liar. At least when Clinton lied about a blow job from a mildly unattractive ditz nobody got killed. Can't say nobody died as a result of this asshole's lies. I don't appreciate that.

Re:bin laden..

[bryanthompson]

sorry to rain on your parade of lies, but when they do the body count, they're also counting deaths saddam's own people caused. They aren't all people killed by US bombs. They take any deaths that have any connnection to the war at all. The reason, why to make a higher body count, of course.

Re:Let The Bush Bashing Begin

[gerardrj]

...He also helped subsidize the terrorists that attacked this country...

What are you talking about? The US government (despite trying desperately to do so) has found absoloutly no evidence that Saddam or the Iraqi government ever funded or consorted with Al Queda or any other "terrorist" group.

On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence that Saudi Arabia HAS directly funded, armed, aided and abedded known terrorist leaders and groups. When do we invade Saudi Arabia?

The "pot shots" as you call them that I take at the US President are simply requests for factual information that makes his stated case. To date I have not seen that ANYTHING that Bush stated as a reason for illegally invading Iraq to be true (no weapons, no terrorist support, no intent to harm neigbors).

Bush lied, he is a cad and a coward. If you think otherwise, then please link to official government press releases/information that provides me with this information. NOT press releases that say they have the information, but the actual information.

Re:bin laden..

[nyseal]

As I've stated before, I'm a veteran and that's an illogical argument. Personnel in the military are expected to figt battles and people die in battle. Am I supposed to think that John Doe dying in battle is any less important than Joe Smith? You people had better spend a few months in the military and with their families before making blanket statements like 'AMERICAN widow'. The risks were known, accepted and called upon. That American widow you spoke of knows that as well and should feel proud that she had the honor of intimately knowing someone who was willing to take the challenge of performing this task. The pain is still there but life goes on. My friends and family HATED that I was in the service but it wasn't up to them and I gladly accepted the challenge. BTW...we ARE safer with Saddam out of the picture and no, I'm not Rush Limbaugh.

Re:bin laden..

[Transcendent]

Try explaining to an AMERICAN widow that the invasion of Iraq somehow made us in America SAFER despite the widow's husband is dead due to some random Islamic idiot's roadbomb.

When you sign up for the military you have no guarantee for life - that's just part of the job.

When you're a citizen of a nation, the government must do everything it can to protect your life and your well being... that's part of it's job.

When you have a government that gasses and kills its own people, then the government isn't doing its job and must be removed. The forces that remove that government know it's going to be hard, know people are going to die or get wounded, and know that every day they're over there their life is in danger...

If they have a problem with that then they shouldn't have signed up with the military in the first place.

Father and son, bedtime chat

[aled]

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons Of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if They had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to Invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government Passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being
communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a Legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf

Re:Allende? You're backing Allende over Pincochet?

[WIAKywbfatw]

Oh, so it's OK to back coups against democratically-elected governments if they are socialist?

Ah, I see now. It doesn't matter that the people of Chile elected Allende in free and fair elections. It only matters that his election wasn't desirable in Washington.

Do you even have a clue at what the word "socialist" means or even how many governments in Europe would be called socialist? Tony Blair's Labour Party may have reinvented itself, but it's essentially a socialist party. Do you see Blair ordering the murder of "comrades" and "peers"? Has the election of a Labour government ever been a justifiable reason for the US deciding to overthrow the British government?

Frankly, your post is full of lies and rubbish. "It was a bad choice between two terrible butchers", you say. Well, care to provide any evidence that Allende was a butcher?

Face facts: the CIA-led overthrow of a democratically-elected government and installation of a fascist dictator is not something in which the US should take pride. Even Colin Powell, when asked about it by a teenager on a MTV debate called it "unfortunate". If Mr Powell recognises it was wrong then why can't you?

Re:bin laden..

[aled]

USA supports Pakistan. Isn't that a truly evil dictatorship? didn't they give training to Talibans? then why supporting them and making them allies?
My point is that while dictatorships are evil and we are all happy there is one less dictator, we shouldn't be blinded that Iraq invation was inspired for a complex mix of economical-geopolitical interests and not for the love of freedom or war againt terrorism. That being the driving force of the ocupation there are high probabilities that this issue ends bad for all the parties involved (coallition, Iraq, UN, etc).
Other dictactors/terrorists are happily supported until they become inconvenient or get out of hand. Doesn't that disturb you?

Re:bin laden..

[TGK]

Bush can't declare war. That takes an act of Congress.

Saddam is one guy. He's about 3 cubic feet in volume and requires a supply of water and glucose (with trace elements) to be kept alive.

Weapons of Mass Destruction, at least in any useable form, are row after row after row of chemical/biological shells. Along with that comes storage and production facilities and other infrastructure. Volume of this material measures in the cubic kilometers (when taken as a whole).

Which one do -=you=- think is easier to hide. You assert that it's taken time X to find Saddam. I assert that time Y (the time it takes to find existing WMD and associated infrastructure) is at LEAST an order of magnitude less than X.

Seriously. One guys VS the chemical/biological/nuclear arsonal of one of the worlds most powerfull armies (I think Iraq ranked in the top 15 before 1991).

Wrong

[unassimilatible]

The War is illegal because it was never declared. In a legal sence, the United States of America has only been at war with Iraq one time. 1991

Technically, the 1991 war remained a cease-fire, a truce which Iraq violated by firing on US patrols during said cease-fire. This invoked the US's right to resume hotilities.

Furthermore, Iraq was in violation of about 2 dozen UN resolutions.

When you've been in possession of a country for months at a time and you've had thousands of people to search it with the co-operation of most of the people in that country, how hard should it be to find anything?

Absurd. We are still finding Egyptian mummies and artifacts that are several millenia-old buried in the desert. We could find Saddam's weapons 250 years from now buried somewhere.

I'll be interested to learn what Saddam has to say on the matter after intense interrogation.

That, and by all reports and estimates of Saddam's state of mind he'd have used those weapons if he'd had them when we marched on Baghdad.

So, if Saddam didn't have WMD, why would he throw out weapons inspectors and risk being thrown out of power? All Saddam had to do was comply with inspectors and he'd still be living in palaces built woth the Iraqi people's money, and still torturing and killing dissenters.

Re:bin laden..

[stevew]

Yeah - right -

And you forget to how the French bypassed the sanctions and had special deals with Saddam and how Saddam pocketed a bunch of the money from the UN food program while the French turned a blind eye!

Look - the facts are pretty simple. The UN sanctions were suppose to let food and medicine get to the people of Iraq - but instead that money lined Saddam's pocket instead of doing what it was designed to do - and the Russians and French helped! If you want to find someone to blame for the misery of the Iraqi people you'll find his picture on CNN/Foxnews/MSNBC as the guy we captured today!

Re:bin laden..

[kableh]

The sanctions ONLY hurt the Iraqi people, and despite pleas from our former friends in the UN and around the world, we by and large ignored them.

And keep in mind, much of this ignoring was under Clinton... This isn't a GOP/Democrat issue, it is an issue of fucked up foriegn policy.

One needs only to look to Cuba for an example of what sanctions do.

Re:bin laden..

[ShwAsasin]

And what freedom is that? The freedom to go poor while americans get rich? The freedom to be declared enemies if you don't believe in a war? Get over your screwed up version of freedom. Real freedom means an Arab can walk into an airport and not be looked at as a terrorist. Real freedom is not having the government which countried you can visit on a vacation or do business with (i.e. Cuba). The only thread Saddam was to the United States was in business interests. Your relations with Saudi Arabia was put into question after 15/19 hijackers were from Saudi decent and you needed an alternative oil source. What better way to get oil then lie to the american people about Iraq creating "weapons of mass destruction" which were partially given to Iraq from your retarded government and help settle the scores the Bush's had with Iraq in the fact they lost the first Iraq war to yet another third world country (for those keeping count North Korea, Vietnam). The united states is no safer today than it was 3 years ago and until you arrogant people stop thinking your the almighty freedom country of the world, people will continue to despise you. Your freedom is nothing more than a word. You always say your country is free but how free is it? Your freedoms are becoming less and less each day in the name of your own security. In the time Junior Bush has been in office, he's been in 2 wars, kill innocent men/women/children in numerous countries Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and others while trying to target some "terrorist".

I laughed at your last presidential election because you call yourselves the "greatest democrasy" yet your voting process was full of scandle. Even Russia has a better voting system in place then the almighty freedom loving americans did. Until the regime of Bush is over, there is no freedom, and standing behind your typical slogan of "we're fighting for your freedom", doesn't make the world safer, but adds more hatred towards your country. This will lead to more killings world wide and eventually to another major attack against your country, when you least expect it. You'll then want the entire world to feel your "pain" for a minor loss compared to the atrocities that happen around the world due to your foreign policies and then you'll want revenge and target a third world country to invade in the name of something stupid to show your "military might". Your freedom is over, face it you've got a dictator who doesn't give a shit about your lives but only about the corporate dollers.

Re:Clinton and Bush

[the_mad_poster]

And, as usually happens when I post this sort of rant, the response is to a completely different topic.

The point isn't that something good came of the attack on Iraq. I have NO qualms about blowing away nutjobs like Hussien. HOWEVER "freeing the Iraqi people" is not the reason that was originally given, it's just what the asshole is playing up now. The administration subtly drew connections between Saddam and Al Quaeda that DO NOT exist. It lied about a current WMD program. It lied about Iraq being a significant threat to the U.S. It put out garbage like "they could sell their weapons" or "the weapons could be stolen" as if Iraq was a serious threat for this happening. Newsflash people: N. Korea has threatened to nuke portions of the U.S. and has been selling shit to countries like Iran for years. No mention of them anywhere.

The POINT is not WHAT he did, but HOW he did it. He's a liar. He's a sniveling crybaby that can't play nice with anyone else, so he grabs his ball and heads home. Fuck it - I'm tired of him doing this sort of shit. I want to see the 9/11 evidence. I want to see these WMDs. I want to see credible reports that Iraq was a significant threat to the U.S. in early 2003. I want to see credible reports showing how terrorism has been affected since 9/11/01.

I will never see them while Bush is in office. Because they don't exist. They won't exist until another President requests them, because they will prove that GWB is a total... fucking... liar.

Re:bin laden..

[gaijin99]

The Iraqis are grateful. If you can't see this then you are truly blind.

Yup. So grateful that they've been killing American solders at a rate of roughly 1 per day since GWB's "Mission Accomplished" photo-op. Interesting way these Iraqis show their gratitude...

Look, I'm not saying that Saddam Hussain wasn't a vile thug, he was. The fact that he is out of power is a good thing, no argument. But. Hating Saddam isn't the same as loving the US. Most Iraqis are doubtless overjoyed that Saddam's government has been toppled, that doesn't mean they like a US occupation of their country either.

On a broader note, I object to the "we're doing it for the poor downtroden people" chest-thumping coming from the Bush government because it is a horrible lie. The same Bush government that is now telling us the war was about human rights, not oil or WMD, has steadfastly ignored the abuses of other dictators, and continues to provide military support for several people at least as bad as Hussain. Look at Indonesia and Uzbekistan, both ruled with an iron fist by people who use mass murder and torture (just like Saddam). Yet neither nation is even being publicly rebuked by the Bush government. Uzbekistan is getting $100M in aid, and the Bush government is pushing to "normalize" military relations with the dictator of Indonesia.

As soon as the Bush government stops giving money and military support to torturing, mass murdering, dictatorships, I'll start believing the "we did it because Saddam was a bad man" line. But let's be honest, getting rid of the vile Saddam Hussain was a side issue. The real issue was letting Halliburton and other corporations that gave millions in "campaign contributons" access to Iraq's oil.

Re:Clinton and Bush

[the_mad_poster]

Awesome evidence there, buddy. I'm sure inclined to believe incomplete conclusions drawn from indirect comparisons when stories include quotes like:

"Like, derrrrrr! I mean, what, actually, do you expect?" - Newsmax

and

Another intriguing coincidence... - Newsmax

And of course, "proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist." obviously proves everything, right? Yes, of course. We're not drawing more irrelevant conclusions here, are we? Nooooo... not at all! A terrorist IN a country must mean that the country is responsible for what the terrorist does! Yes, of course! It makes sense now! Of course, that means we just implicated ourselves in 9/11 since they LEARNED TO FLY THE FUCKING PLANES IN THE U.S.

As for backing up my claims about the administrations bullshit WMD garbage, I think Dubya's boys and girls can do that for themselves, thank you:

In the case of Saddam Hussein, we've got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons... - Cheney

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. - Cheney

We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. - Rice

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. - Bush

Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. - Bush

The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. - Bush

After eleven years .. Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. - Bush

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists... - Cheney

And, here's a real kick in the nuts for you if you were going to try and tell me that this doesn't prove that's why he started the war:

If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us. - Powell

And I'll kick you in the nuts about the 2 "mobile factories" that were found before you get a chance to bring them up:

They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were -- facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons. - British Weapons Inspector

Come on then. The Telegraph link and the Newsmax link both draw baseless conclusions on current unknowns and TWP link doesn't really say much of anything the proves there's a connection. It just says that there's potentially new evidence that there was one. Once that new intel has been scrutinized and verified, THEN I'll look. Got any evidence for me NOW, or am I supposed to just infer things from your BS links and pretend that my guesses prove something?

There are posters in this thread who are obviously disappointed that W and the boys captured Saddham. That's sad.

Nice to know. Go pester THEM and leave ME the fuck alone until you have real evidence, not a bunch of opinionated bullshit on new developments. My point stands, as of 12/14/03 at 2:19 P.M. EST, the real reasons for the war in Iraq are as yet unproven claims about terrorist links and Weapons of Mass Destruction. And, I might point out before we get too deep into that, why the fuck is this idiot even TRYING to justify a war AFTER it's over!? I'd say that starting a war without evidence of its necessity is grounds for impeachment, wouldn't you?

Saddam Wins, Bush Loses

[PizzaFace]

You're hearing it here first, folks. This is good news for Saddam Hussein and bad news for Bush. Saddam now gets a bath, a shave, clean clothes, a lawyer, and a global platform from which to reaffirm that he had no weapons of mass destruction and to accuse the U.S. of hypocrisy if not war crimes. He also has such a high profile that he can't be shipped off to Syria or Pakistan to be tortured. The Iraqi politicians who run his trial will, in the interest of national reconciliation, give him exile or a long prison term, from which he will be reprieved in 10 or 15 years. He will have time and opportunity to leave his mark on the history books.

Bush would have been better off if Saddam had been killed instead of captured. I'm shocked that he wasn't; the army didn't give his sons (and grandson) a chance to surrender. Bush's version of history would have been safer if Saddam had either been killed or been left in his rat hole.

Re:bin laden..

[timiscool999]

Dear Mr. Ashcroft,

Now that we've captured Saddam, may I please have my rights back? I promise to use them responsibly and to never support terrorism (just like I did before 9/11).

Re:Over 61,000 people killed by a dictator...

[StevenMaurer]

But the chinese didn't attack us on 9/11, Arabs did.

Actually, religious fanatics attacked us on 9/11. Therefore, your logic shows that we should go killing religious fanatics. Maybe starting with John Ashcroft...?

Bush always intended to go after Saddam. That much is clear. President Clinton told Bush on his exit interview that Osama Bin Laden was the most dangerous man to the U.S., and Bush replied that Saddam was. Two days after 9/11 - before we even knew who did it - his administration started telling our intelligence agencies to "build a case against Iraq". The war in Afghanistan was a war on terror. The war in Iraq was intended to intimidate Arabs, but will only serve to strengthen the power of al-Qaeda.

It will also serve to increase the number of deranged autocracies with nuclear weapons. Don't think for a moment that the lesson of North Korea is lost on the world. Kim Song Jong Ill, who has let eleven million of his countrymen starve to death, is able to directly threaten the U.S. with nary a peep from this administration. Why? Because, unlike Saddam, when he promised to get rid of nuclear weapons, he lied.

Bush has made it unsafe to be in America's bad graces without a nuclear weapon. Therefore, everyone will get one.

Re:Good.

[fiddlesticks]

>Hopefully, this will stop the attacks on the coalition troops

Unlikely. Most attackers aren't opposing the occupation of Iraq by 'Coalition' forces with violent means because they like(d) Saddam, but because they (understandably) don't like being occupied, by 'freedom fighters' or not, and there's no way for them to express this except with direct action, at the moment.

If it takes the cessation of attacks on occupying forces to get the occupying forces to withdraw, then I fear we're in an infinite loop.

Re:bin laden..

[stonecypher]

Hey, Saddam was a bad guy, no doubt about it. But we should have never stopped looking for Osama. By pulling our best troops off that hunt, we let him get away. Brilliant move, guys.

Yeah, and we got Saddamn Fucking Hussein.

This is like being angry that we let a burglar go to catch a rapist. Osama is not anywhere nearly the problem Saddam is. Open a history book that goes back more than three years.

a lesson for everyone

[VanillaCoke420]

I hope that USA have learned not to support tyrants and terrorists as they did in Chile, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and SaudiArabia. Because that is what they have been doing, while claiming to fight for freedom. Rumsfeld is not a liberator. He was one of those supporting Saddam during the 80's. Why am I saying this? Because the historically ignorant Americans will sit around and believe that their leaders always try to fight for freedom in the world.

Absolutely not.

They are fighting for their own power.

Mod me down if you think that will make you feel better, because I am sure it will feel better than the truth does.

Now, let's celebrate that Saddam was arrested. Too bad you didn't do the same with Idi Amin.

Re:bin laden..

[stonecypher]

Yup. So grateful that they've been killing American solders at a rate of roughly 1 per day since GWB's "Mission Accomplished" photo-op. Interesting way these Iraqis show their gratitude...

Ah yes, because in cities with millions of people, having one of tens of thousands of occupying soldiers attacked two or three times a day clearly shows that the whole populace is up in arms. I mean, if they all hated it, they probably would have attacked more than ... oh, wait.

See, this is the problem. It's a war torn nation. Formerly rich families are destitute, but still proud. There's starvation. Infrastructure is ruined. Therefore, tempers are high. This isn't even New York barfight level anger, if only one person is dying a day. Soccer mobs actually do more damage.

In the meantime, we've got well fed well paid well clothed well apointed white people, a few of whom are genuinely racist, a number of whom are going to be drunk or occasionally high, saying things they shouldn't, doing things they shouldn't. Many things which are normal to us are morally, religiously and legally abominable to them - such as being drunk.

Furthermore, there's the small branch of Iraqis which profited under Saddam. They're almost certainly mightily pissed.

Oh, and right, there's all the political mumbo jumbo going on in the area; a number of these are actually funded by (insert random dictator x) whose vested interest in making the foreign powers seem evil to maintain domestic control has a particularly fruitful avenue while tampering with one of the first major mations to revert to rule by the people in the area in decades.

I think it's a show of incredible control that in a ruined once prosperous city of millions which has been crippled first by dictatorship and next by sanction and resultant economic collapse a set of ill-behaved foreigners which have been propogandized to be about to do this very thing haven't been murdered in droves.

There hasn't been a single street mob. No lynchings. No organized revolt. No underground. We can't say that about any three adjacent states in our country's history. Doesn't it strike you as odd that these people seem about as riled up as a Saint Patrick's Day parade? Yeah, maybe Rumsfeld took everyone out of baghdad and made those human celebrations - WHICH YOU COULD SEE MOVING ON TERRASERVER - with a giant 1920s style dancing cast. Good thing they didn't fake it in Utah; FOX would have found it and done a special.

Jackass.

But. Hating Saddam isn't the same as loving the US. Most Iraqis are doubtless overjoyed that Saddam's government has been toppled, that doesn't mean they like a US occupation of their country either.

I'm sure a great many Germans were none too happy about the French occupation of Berlin, either. Nevertheless, when you escape Mumm-Ra only to fall into the hands of Ratar-O, you know you've traded up in the world.

Look, I'm not standing up for our coup government. But W isn't nearly as capably evil as Saddam is, and Cheniwell is basically a Hanna Barbera bumbling ne'er-do-well. Their kind of antics are things like charging double for gasoline and misplacing girders at the cost of the US taxpayer, not cutting off limbs for wayward glances. If I were king, cheney would indeed be against the wall, but there are a helluvalot of people that would go first.

Note to secret service: the above is literate exaggeration. Look up the dictionary entry for sarcasm, and proceed to investigate every facet of my life. Hint: it's a music reference.

On a broader note, I object to the "we're doing it for the poor downtroden people" chest-thumping coming from the Bush government because it is a horrible lie.

A villiage sits at the base of a valley. One year, the winter is bad, and damages the soil holding back a river; the surveyors suggest it will break through in a few years, and that though it can be shored up, a dam is needed.

The pr

Re:bin laden..

[gaijin99]

Starting with the most off-topic issue, then working my way back to topic here.

if tomorrow the US decided to spend 100 billion dollers to rebult all of iraq

Ahem. The US is already spending $87 billion rebuilding Iraq, and current estimates indicate that it will cost at least tripple that overall. The price is doubtless inflated due to the "no-bid, let's just give GWB's friends huge contracts with no oversight and no audit" style of spending the Bush government seems to like, but we (the US taxpayer) has already spent very close to $100 billion. On the US side of things we're seeing the economic crunch greatly accelerated by the Bush government's wild spending coupled with equally wild tax cuts for billionares. Remember, when the Bush government cuts taxes for billionares, *someone's* got to pick up the tab. Guess who gets to foot the bill for GWB's departure from the hunt for Al-Qida? If you said "gee, I guess its the average joe" then you guessed right. The bottom 40% of the population in the US controls about 1% of the money, yet they *pay* about 2% of the taxes. By comparison, the top 1% controls about 36% of the money, and they pay about 36% of the taxes. Dollar for dollar this means that the upper 1% pay half as much in taxes as the bottom 40%.

Look, if 99% of the population supports the US, but theres 1% that don't that means there are going to be ppl willing to kill US soldiers for their belifes

Actually, it would be quite useful if there were some way to get real numbers out of Iraq, but it isn't. I suspect that quite a few more than 1% want the US out. Again, this doesn't mean that Saddam wasn't bad, and that they aren't happy that he's gone; they just want the US gone too. The reason I suspect that more than 1% are unhappy (to put it mildly) with the US is because of what happens *after* a US soldier gets killed: there's usually a cheering crowd gathered around, which can't be good for moral.

More to the point, 1% can't organize the kind of gurilla attacks that we've been seeing. It doesn't take many people to shoot a gun, or fire off an RPG, or what have you, but it does take a rather large support base in the general population to hide the combatants, keep them supplied, etc. Notice that the US soldiers have only caught a handful of Iraqi gurillas. This means that, at a minimum, the average Iraqi isn't helping the US find these gurillas, which implies a certain degree of sympathy with the gurillas.
I honestly don't know what the answer to the problem is, a complete US withdrawl from Iraq at this point would plunge the entire country into the kind of anarchistic chaos that grows dictators, and hurts lots of people. The US soldiers don't like being there, and they are (quite understandably) nervious every time they see an Iraqi. They're trained to respond to a threat of violence with overwealming force; which is great for winning wars, but not so good for keeping order after you win.

More international help would doubtless be tremendously helpful. Unfortunately, the Bush government managed to waste all the goodwill the US had worldwide by starting this war the way he did... The general attitude among other nations seems to be: "He started this war on his own, why should I help now?" I can't say I really blame them for having that attitude, it'd be nice if the other major powers would just forget about all the insults, etc, that the Bush government has smacked them with, but that isn't going to happen.

Of course, in the midst of all this Osama is still at large, Afghanistan is coming back under Taliban control (remember back in the old days when the US beat someone and they stayed beaten? Not under the Bush government), and international terrorism seems to have been completely unaffected by the Bush government's decision to invade Iraq. The entire thing has been a hundreds of billions dollar distraction from the *real* objective of ending kind of terrorism that resulted in 9/11.

No that it will get read

[gnuLNX]

I have done my share of posting today and allowed my self to stoop to some pretty damn low levels. I was just having a conversation with my girlfriend about how I was worried about the state of the world. Here we are on slashdot...arguable some of the more educated members of the world and I see posts about hating this nationality or hating the amercans and blah blah blah....people we gotta all wake up...shit man myself included. It is our generation that is going to be running the world in a few years I would hate to thing that we would take the world farther from peace than it is now. we don't have to agree on everythig, but can't we at least agree to not hate each other. Please!