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

Good.

[swerdloff]

Good news for Iraqis.

Hopefully, this will stop the attacks on the coalition troops, and the US can pull out and let Iraq start setting up its own country.

He didn't fire a shot or fight back at all, according to the news. That's the best part. According to a report on NPR, that's going to decimate his standing among the populace who used to fear him. Now he's just seen (according to the Al Hayat reporter on NPR) as a coward.

Good.

Re:Good.

[Kevinv]

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.

There may even be an upswing in attacks in retaliation, but i would expect that to fall off fairly quickly.

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).

Re:Good.

[Marillion]

I agree, mostly. This really a non-event in the grand scheme of things.

Let's turn it arround. Let's imagine Iraqis conquered the US, Bush goes into hiding, they take over various governmental functions. All over the country, Red Blooded Americans start uprising. Not because of Bush, but because there are Iraqis running our country. Now the Iraqis captured Bush. Do you really think Red Blooded Americans would suddenly say, "Oh, they got Bush. I guess I better get back to work now."

If more people thought, "Well what would an American do if the situation were reversed?" And stopped thinking like imperialists, then I think there would be far less blood spilt in the Cradle of Civilization.

$1 million from Bruce?

[nacturation]

So does this mean that Bruce Willis is going to cough up his $1 million reward? And what about the four seconds alone with him? :)

Re:$1 million from Bruce?

[Glock27]

So does this mean that Bruce Willis is going to cough up his $1 million reward?

Only if someone besides the troops can claim responsibility (that person will also get $10 million from Uncle Sam if so). If it's only the soldiers, they can't claim a reward...though I'll bet Bruce will throw one heck of a party for them when they return to the States! :-)

Iraqi, U.S., or international trial appropriate?

[Faust7]

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?

Will the newly-established Iraqi government, or perhaps the U.S. itself, take steps to prevent such an event from occurring?

I foresee international tensions rising from their already heightened point over this matter.

Re:Naysayers

[ahillen]

Well, I thought I'd get this comment in before all the anti-war people got on.
It's very well possible to see the war as a mistake and seeing the arrest of Saddam as a Very Good Thing(TM).

GOOD JOB GUYS!!!!
Indeed.

Thread: place yer bets

[whovian]

US stock markets surge Monday.

The US detains Saddam indefinitely to prevent Iraqis from assassinating him.

Bush gets re-elected.

Re:Thread: place yer bets

[raind]

Yeah the market will probably surge on monday, hope that translates into a job for me!
God help us if dubya gets in again....sure doesn't look promising so far.

New slashdot poll? who you gonna vote for in 04?

Fair trial?

[Blue Master]

The question now is: Will he get a fair trial? As far as I could make out from the news broadcast here (Norway), he will face a court specifically assigned to try the cases of members of the former regime. Now, this court was assigned by who, excactly? Let me guess, Americans? Wouldn't it be more fair to try him in the international court in Haag?

If only...

[deepvoid]

Ohhh...What I couldn't do with a wall outlet, a spool of ni-chrome wire, salt, and Saddam Hussain.

America screwed over?

[Leffe]

I read on one of the news sites that he will be tried in Iraq, by Iraqi's, which would be best IMO.

Not for the current administration. While his guilt is certain, if he is given anything less then a showtrial in which he is gagged and without a real lawyer he could have a field day embarrassing the US, and in particular reaganite members of the current Bush administration. Imagine for a second that we've got to where they are charging him with gassing the Kurds. At this point, assuming his lawyer has any clue, he'll supoena major members of the Bush administration to come and reread their own words in defending Iraq's "right" to gas the Kurds, both when they went to UN and vetoed the resolution to punish Iraq for it, and when they went to the Senate and successfully stopped the "Prevention of Genocide Act" the senate was trying to pass against Iraq for the gassing. He'll also likely bring up other things. For instance when the charge of trying to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons comes up, he'll pull out the records showing how the now Bush Jr. serving members went out of their way to provide him with high quality US chemical weapons, samples of Anthrax and other bio weapons and the supplies needed fast track his own bio weapons program, and over $1 billion dollars in components for nuclear weapons and delivery systems for the above weapons (which is where Iraq's scary SCUD missles all came from). From that a defense lawyer could easily paint a picture that the administration at the time (and of whom many now serve under Bush) fully supported Saddam in using those weapons (Iraq had already been declared a terrorist nation years before, so it's not like they thought he was nice at the time).

Re:America screwed over?

[JFMulder]

Thanks for writing in a coherent way what I was thinking all along.

The Bush administration doesn't want a real PUBLIC trial to take place, because Saddam could reveal everthing the Bush Senior administration told him during the Gulf War, everything the US, France, Britain and about every other country did for Irak and him WHILE he was in power and known to be a dictactor. This isn't going to look good at all for a lot of countries if this guy gets to speak publicly.

I wouldn't be surprised for a second if they pulled a "Lee Harvey Oswald" and have Saddam conveniently killed or "suicided".

Re:America screwed over?

[bar-agent]

If the trial is done in an Iraqi court under Iraqi law, why would the court admit or consider any comments by foreign leaders of state or government?

His contacts with the United States could come up in questions of motivation or supply for his war crimes. His defense could try out the argument that Hussein was a patsy for the United States and other countries.

Don't forget, it's not like Iraq likes the U.S.

Re:America screwed over?

[StarTux]

Why are these getting moderated so high?

Its no secret that Saddam recieved aid from many countries, don't just pick on the US and Britain, in fact the ones to most fear more public scrutiny are Germany and France, but especially France as they supplied much more military gear to the Iraqi's. Indeed during the '91 Gulf War most French Mirages had to be used to patrol well away from the frontline as they gave out the same radar signature (and emitted same radar patterns) as the Iraqi Mirages.

But, lets take the years in CONTEXT, not with 20/20 hindsight. The Cold War was still very much going on, and many countries became the battle ground and only now are we paying the cost for the fall out of this.

Doubt many countries would really fear anything he revealed about past relations, but more about rhetoric as in returning to power, or maybe some message to his followers to make more attacks, perhaps this time with some WMD's.

And before people wonder where they are, keep an open mind as really who knows whether or not he ever had them.

"I wouldn't be surprised for a second if they pulled a "Lee Harvey Oswald" and have Saddam conveniently killed or "suicided"."

And Martyr him? Its a hard choice, keep him alive and risk terrorists trying to capture hostages for his release, or have him executed and have many die for his name. Personnally I hope he is kept alive on a place such as St. Helena, that way he can spend the rest of his life in isolation to ponder on the things he has done.

StarTux

Millions of Iraqis care...

[Shivetya]

and while it may be true he wasn't in direct control of guerilla forces I doubt very seriously his continued evasion wasn't boosting their morale. I would also contend that he did have contact with them.

Where he was captured is in no way indicative of his capabilities. Fact is, it was probably a great hiding place, after all, why look at something that doesn't stand out from the background? Classic misdirection.

As with most captures of wanted people, someone ratted on him.

and yes, millions of Iraqis care, both there and worldwide. This is a day of celebration, do not discount them because of your petty views. These people have been living scared for a long time, that is a helluva a yoke to bear.

Sovereign my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Government derives from the people. A brutal dictator cannot hide his murders behind the shield of sovereignty, and he shouldn't be able to. Sovereignty does not trump everything.

It sounds like Iraqis love America more than you do. I would be glad to trade you for one of the peace-loving (and respecting) people of Iraq.

Bush: a war criminal?

[tcak]

Hopefully with the arrest of Saddam, the issue of WMD will come up. Saddam will give evidence that there are no weapons of mass destruction, thus causing George W. Bush to be tried as a war criminal by the international community.

Re:who cares?

[Fulkkari]

Was he controlling his guerilla army from his 'spider hole'?

I doubt that too, but Saddam Hussein was the "inspirational" source to his loyalists. Now that he is captured some of them might give up once their leader has been defeated. As the news I heard suggests that Saddam himself is willing to co-operate, his loyalits morale propably will take a serious hit.

Not only that, the people in Iraq are as tired of these guerillas as the US, and want to get rid of them. It will take some time for them to stop terrorist attacks in this grade, but I don't think they are going to do that forever. Why would they continue if their own people doesn't support them?

Re:who cares?

[Avihson]

Not only will the Ba'athists be less inclined to fight, but the "Lion of Tikrit" was found hiding in a hole in the ground, and submitted to the disgrace of a televised medical exam.

This is a great shame for the fearless leader to be found hiding. The Iraqi are no longer afraid of his return to power. One of the Iraqi reporters at the press conference pointedly asked if the ban on capital punishment could be lifted in this case, Paul Bremmer and his Iraqi counterpart in the conditional government had to remain noncommittal.

Forget the politics

[Alex Heagan]

Forget about the political stuff. If you saw the press conference, the reaction of the Iraqi reports was very moving. It doesn't matter what you believe about Bush or America or anything else. To see people genuinely rejoice like those men is an amazing thing. Will this have any effect on the resistance? Who knows? But it is undeniable that this will have a powerful effect on the psyche of the Iraqi people. The Boogeyman is gone. The Iraqi's are now in a position to begin asserting themselves, to further express the amazing pride they have in their people and their country. This is a VERY significant day.

Horrible contradiction

[nirvanis]

Those who funded Saddam's terror reign for years now save the world from terrorist menace.

(Likewise I'm happy to see Saddam captured)

Amazing!

[JSmooth]

Wow! I mean this is just amazing news! The ENTIRE armed forces of the most powerful nation on earth was able to track down and apprehend a man after less than a year of destroying what remained of his homeland. Boy am I proud to be an American! Phew!

Our boys kicked ass on this one! When our fearful (oops, fearless) leader says we will get our man, by golly, we get our man! 1000s of lives, billions of dollars, these are piddly details in the quest of Saddam.

Here's the real question: What, exactly, are the differences between Bush and Hussein?

One is a failed, alocholic, AWOL, carpet bagging Yankee murderer and the other is just a ruthless dictator...

Sorry, I won't bother with the karma here, all you "patriotic" citizens go ahead and rip me apart for excerising my freedom of speech.

Thanks

"these colors never run"
except from: Sharks, Snipers, The Flu, and any other thing the 24hour News Channels tell us to be afraid of.

Re:Classic misdirection

[Glock27]

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.

Exactly. An excellent way to begin solving many of those problems is to create a strong, stable democracy in place of a brutal dictatorship, in a pivotal Middle Eastern country.

Historically, as people worldwide have been exposed to democracy, they've wanted it for themselves. It's happening in Iraq right now.

Plenty of partying in Baghdad tonight! =)

"celebrations"

[jguevin]

While I don't doubt that many, many Iraqis are overjoyed at Hussein's capture, I couldn't help but notice that the celebrating Iraqis seemed to be small pockets of about thirty men, jumping up and down for a camera, on otherwise empty streets.

Reminds of a certain statue-toppling event not so long ago.

The skeptic in me also wonders whether Hussein really said, hours after his capture, that Iraqis were "less than human", and generally "made a mockery of Iraq."

Thoughts?

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

[attonitus]

United States only provided Saddam witharound 1% of his armaments during the period from 1973-1992

This graphic seems to get quoted failed often. It's rather misleading in that it focusses on arms transfers by volume. This means that:

1 AK47 = 1 supergun

Money provided to buy weapons isn't taken any account of

Intelligence aid isn't reflected at all

Re:Classic misdirection

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans need to stop thinking of everything in terms of "democracy". The cause of Islamic terrorism is primarily Arab nationalism. No "democracy" will change that.

Random ramblings. (Ignore this post.)

[Mmm coffee]

Woke up, saw news, had karma to burn, felt like saying something, dunno why. Here goes.

(1) I am sick of all the people here, on Fark, and on countless other sites mindlessly bitching about the conservitives and/or the liberals. All politicians are going for the $ no matter what party you support, both sides are insane, and the majority of people are centrists with a slight leaning one side or another. Extremists from both sides are equally mindless, and as always are the ones to make the most noise. Nobody cares about your blind following, please either say something with an ounce of intelligence behind it or STFU. Duckspeak is annoying.

(Side note: All you people adding intelligent debate and thoughts reguardless of your political affiliation: keep it up! People who help the good content to noise ratio are the unsung heroes of the internet.)

(2) I am very glad Saddam is found. One less asshole in the world to worry about. However...

(3) Until I hear of nukes with "Hi, there!" painted on the sides being dragged out of Iraq, we have still invaded Iraq for no good reason. The only reason the UN went along with this little war is because US intelligence lied about WMD and thus believed that they posed a serious threat to neighboring nations. No WMD = unjustified war = unjustified deaths on both sides.

(4) A clarification of #2: Again, I am glad that he's taken care of. However, it is not America's place or anyone else's to say "I disagree with that X nation is doing, bomb them". If we have the right to bomb another nation to "free the people" then why doesn't China have the right to start WW3 with us in order to "free the poor American people from the totalarian fist of the Bush regime" or such other bollocks? Only if a nation has the power to pose a severe threat to neighboring nations or the world at large should drastic military action be taken against them.

(5) Where the fuck is Osama?!?! He flew those planes into our buildings, not Saddam. Why the hell is he no longer a high priority? I've had a close friend die in the WTC and you're telling me that capturing the man directly responsible for my friend's death isn't a priority?!!!

(6) I sure hope they don't do anything stupid like torturing Saddam. Should we treat him inhumanely a _LOT_ of people will be severely pissed, a lot of them nuts enough to do insane crap like fly planes into our buildings. What we receive 10 years from now will be a direct mirror of our actions now, after all.

(7) Speaking of Osama, shouldn't we be going after the top brass at the CIA for training him? I mean, they basically started the largest terrorist movement in the world..

(8) The war on terrorism can never end, for it is not a static entity. A war on Iraq can end. A war on an action anyone can do can not end. The Bush administration has started a war that will never end, a war that they can exploit to give them a lot of power they are not intended to have (and have done so). This situation scares me.

(9) It saddens me that I have yet to hear anyone question "Where will this take us in 10 years? Or 20?" We are repeating past mistakes and worrying only about the immediate future, it seems. The amount of debt we are leaving to future generations through this war alone makes me afraid of our impact on the future. Let alone the legal precidents we have set, loss of rights, new (probably unconstitutional) laws, nations we've pissed off, etc.

(10) I need coffee. Damn parents calling me at 6am telling me to turn on the TV when they know damn well that I don't own a TV and haven't for years... grr...

Re:No connection

[Anonymous Coward]

I love it when people say that tired old line: "This has nothing to do with September 11".

Bullshit.

And broad tax cuts have nothing to do with boosting an economy in recession. Yeah right. How about this: Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Wait, that doesn't count for anything either. How about it's politically incorrect to say "Merry Christmas" in public schools. Please.

I am glad that characters like you still don't get it, because frankly you never will. Thank you very much for telling me how I should feel about the matter. I calmy disagree.

Re:No invasion == pro Saddam

[malkavian]

I'm sorry, I don't know where you're getting that rather blinkered view that "You cannot be anti-invasion and anti-Saddam"
What happened to the ages old methods of insurgency, funding internal dissention, assassination and a whole host of other, quiet methods.
What happened to actually invading on the correct premise! Hell, what do you think would have happened if the US had said "We're invading Iraq because Saddam is guilty of human rights violations", which is what it's being spun as now, with the lack of discovery of WMD.
Personally, I destest the concept of the acts that Saddam's been performing. Yes, he needed to be held accountable.
There again, there are a goodly many dictators of this style around the world currently. All happily sitting in power.
Do you advocate invading them? Do you understand the consequences of doing this?
Bush was NOT in favour of having one less dictator. He was acting on flawed intelligence (and both he and Blair were warned the intelligence was flawed, but they chose to ignore it and use it as a key document). The whole basis of the war was a forged document. They understood that this was a good possibility, but still went with it on the advice of the gung ho military advisors.
False data leads to invasion of a sovereign nation. Wonderful. Puts great amount of trust in the guys at the top.
And now, the initial fallacy has been carefully swept under the carpet. People are carefully not mentioning WMD, and trying to make out that Saddam was responsible for all the terrorist attacks (incidentally, I'm wondering if that counts the "terrorist attacks" that were committed on US troops that were "defending Iraqis" while in the war, with the Iraqi military forces being branded terrorists.

So, yes, you can say something, even if you're not willing/able to do something about it. After all, there's supposed to be free speech. Or are you saying that should be quashed in the interests of patriotism to a country that's not native to a LOT of slashdot readers?
By your statement that if you've not done something about it, you're in favour of it, I would assume you're also backing North Kora, many African dictators that use exactly the same modus operandi, the spread of aids, disease, poverty and general nastiness. No? Well, what have you done about it? Nothing? Well, please retract your argument.
Bush certainly doesn't come out on top. In fact, he's widely destested outside the US. You read way too much of your internal news. He was not in favour of toppling one more dictator. He was after a political grab, and a high profile.
With a lot of spin, media manipulation, and some sheer luck, it seems he may have made it. The guy's clever, I'll give him that.
But you certainly seem to have fallen, hook, line and sinker for all the propaganda out there.
I really do suggest that you compose arguments which are reasoned (my own may not be entirely correct, but at least I have points I may attempt to defend, or conceed in light of better information), rather than knee jerk "You can't do that! You can't say that!", with no basis in fact, or reason.

Re:Classic misdirection

[zandermander]

His operation has been greatly hindered, and he'll go down...eventually.

I agree with all of your statements - even that his operation has been greatly hindered - but don't think he can't elude capture/death/cream-pies-in-the-face for quite a long time.

Pol Pot was responsible for the death of something like 30% (more?) of all Cambodians. Despite the horrid acts he committed, Pol Pot died of old age in a rural village in Cambodia.

Re:bin laden..

[BasilBrush]

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!".

People like you said they hadn't found Sadam. It was a needle in a haystack. The truth is that at that time they just hand't found yet.

They also haven't found evidence of WMD yet. That doesn't mean they won't. And therefore you can't yet say that the war was illegal.

Re:who cares?

[aborchers]

The U.S. cann't attack any nation.... blah blah blah.... Well pal we did, and the world is now a much safer place for it.

Interesting assertion, but I'm not sure it's a defensible one.

In the short term, it is evident from a cursory scan of the news that the world is currently not safer, but is considerably more dangerous. We may be seeing the dying fury of a cornered animal, or we may be seeing the birth of a long-lived war of international insurgency (an oxymoron?)

I concede that the world may well be on its way to becoming a safer place, but that remains to be seen. There are a lot of long-term consequences of this policy that have to be worked out.

Re:Everybody deserves a fair trial -- look at Germ

[Fractal Dice]

Everybody deserves a fair trial.

But by what set of laws? International law - which the US flouts whenever it suits them? US law? New Iraq law (if there is a new legal system)? Old Iraq law? ("I was the dictator, my world was law"?). Can anyone honestly imagine any trial where a verdict of "not guilty, he's free to go" would be allowed? I do agree with your post, I guess I'm just a little too cynical about the new world order.

Does either Bush have to go on trial for the civilian deaths his orders led to? Does Blair have to face trial for possibly taking his country to war under false pretenses? Does Dick Cheney have to go on trial to explain who provided Iraq with chemical weapons technology and materials in the first place? (actually, I'd be rather curious to hear Saddam has to say at his trial about this one)

If the US president is the leader of the democratic world, why doesn't the rest of the world get a vote?

Re:"Irak"?

[JFMulder]

You know you're reading Slashdot that most of their readers only speak english and don't know that in french we write "Iraq" Irak. So I made a mistake, big deal. I'd like to see you write in french.

Re:bin laden..

[bryanthompson]

i seriously wish i had mod points to give you. the first real insightful post, yours, was FIVE pages down on slashdot. It will be modded flamebait and troll in a few minutes, which i'm sorry for.

I'm ruining my excellent karma by pointing this out, but take a look at all the "insightful" posts modded 4+. they are ALL ANTI-BUSH, and anti-war. Why do you think that is.

i don't understand how people can watch the news about this and not be happy! it amazes me that people will just ignore what a great thing this is for their own political agendas.

you don't have to like bush to be happy about this

----- This is the message from http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/.

I don't know what to say.. I am confused.. no ... I am very happy.. I am very happy.. .. I am very happy.. .. I am very happy.. .. I am very happy.. .. I am very happy.. .. I am very happy..

This is the end of tyranny.. congratulations .. a great day.. for Iraqi and all the good people.. share us our great day.. I can't express my feelings.. thanks to the coalition forces and all the honest people who helped in that great operation....thank you thank you thousand times..

How can you argue with that? they are THANKING us for helping them get freedom. If you liberals had your way, Saddam would still be killing these people, instead, we stayed strong and now he's been captured.

I love it. Yes let's be happy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of you wish the US hadn't interfered. You point out the people that the US killed.

You tend to forget that Saddam was mass murdering his own people like these:
http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

And he did it with French planes and Russian arms. He owed them money. And you believed the propaganda that the US is evil and it should leave Saddam alone. Which of course is exactly what Saddam, France and Russia wanted you to believe.

You point out the lack of biologicals, but you don't seem to mind that it took this long to find a man with a huge price on his head. Now go find a couple of containers of biologicals in a counry about the size of any of the midwestern states of the US. Who knows where they're hidden? Can you tell me where every container in Illinois is located. Can you?

Look people, just be happy that a tyrant's reign is over. I look at this web site and I see a bunch of people who would never have challenged Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Franco or any other mass killer. It disturbs me that so many people who obsess about corporate and government oppression gleefully let governments kill their own people and only get upset if the US is involved in stopping it.

I used to be very involved in Amnesty International. Our goal was to point out and try to create international awareness of these kinds of abuses. It's amazing to me that the activist community collectively shoves its head in the sand when someone like the US and Britain actually stands up for the people of Iraq. I think I left Amnesty because it's hard to change the apathy of people. This war has really shown me that even the activist community can really get its head so totally up its ass that it misses the point.

Yes war sucks. But at the same time nothing would have changed for anyone in Iraq without it.

Anyway, I'm glad this chapter is over and I'm just really sickened by the fact that people keep watching this guy commit these crimes over and over and over again. Whether we like it or not, sometimes war is unavoidable and some regimes will not back down unless toppled. That's just an ugly fact that we have to face. No amount of diplomatic ass kissing would change someone that did the acts in the site linked above.

And to whoever it was that said this was an illegal war. It was not. The surrender terms of the first war clearly spelled out what Iraq's responsibilities were. They did not fulfill any of them for a period of years. They thumbed their noses at the world and did a good job of building enough propaganda that it almost worked to save them.

Re:bin laden..

[aled]

Yeah, and Saddam Hussein never accepted help or support of the United States also. And Noriega neither. Not the others of course!

Re:bin laden..

[Bedouin X]

Very few people act like Saddam was a good guy, but just being a bad guy isn't reason enough to break protocol and invade the country. This is why the WMD question is such a big one.

When Saddam gassed the Kurds, it was during the Iran-Iraq war (because the Kurdish village that was attacked was allegedly helping the Iranians) during which Saddam had the backing of the U.S. The U.S. knew exactly what went down and didn't do dick. As a matter of fact, the Pentagon co-developed a report afterwards saying that Iran was more than likely the ones who did the gassing. Evidence now says that was a B.S. cover story to justify the continuing relationship between the U.S. and Saddam.

Anyhow, if the WMD program was as dangerous as billed, I'm sure that a significant number of people know where these weapons are. Surely many more than those who knew where Saddam was hiding. Which one turns up first? Don't you think the person that could point out these weapons would become extraordinarily rich? Somebody has to know. So far they have gotten crap lead after crap lead. Not even a TRACE of the stuff.

Anyhow, they have Saddam now so we'll see where it goes. Personally I hope that they find them (WMD) because this could set a precedent that undermines stability worldwide. Not that worldwide stability is attainable anyway... but I'm sure you know what I mean.

Re:bin laden..

[Anonymous Coward]

"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. Since then we've bombed a soverign state for shits and giggles, but haven't really declared war. "

You forget that the 1991 war was never ended. There was never a peace treaty with Iraq, neither was there a surrender of either country. The fighting didn't even stop (remember the no-fly-zones?).

The war is as legal as the war in 1991, because it is the same war. It was a new battle, but the same war.

Re:bin laden..

[Zeinfeld]

A tremendous victory? Why? Do you think Iraqi resistance will stop because of this?

Did the Russian Revolution end with the capture of the Tzar?

The administration sees everything through the lens of their own preconceptions. They thought that the invasion would be greated with flowers from grateful Iraqis. They thought that it would be a cake walk. They even held the victory parade and declared 'Mission Accomplished' with Saddam still on the loose.

There is no shortage of would be Saddam replacements. The pentagon choice Chalabai is a thug with criminal convictions for BCCI scale embezlement in Jordan. There are plenty of jumped up clerics looking to become the next Ayatolah.

In the Russian revolution Lenin allowed the middle of the road Menchevick faction to do the hard work of overthrowing the Tzar. Then with the Tzar out of the way he replaced the Menchvicks with a second revolution.

There are a bunch of would be Ayatolahs waiting for the US to do their dirty work for them. All they need to do now is persuade the US to go home. Unfortunately the event that is cited most often in the arabic chat rooms is Reagan's decision to cut and run from Lebanon after the Marine barracks bombing.

Re:bin laden..

[Martin Blank]

As opposed to the peaceful Democrats that got involved in World War II (FDR), Korea (Truman), Vietnam (Kennedy/Johnson), and Yugoslavia (Clinton)?

And there was much rejoicing!

[steve buttgereit]

I only hope they let the Iraqis exercise justice than some limp-wristed international court.

Re:And there was much rejoicing!

[WildBeast]

There will be no fair trial. He wants to embarass the big super powers and France and the US have a lot to loose if Saddam gets a lawyer and a fair trial.

Hillary beats Dean in the Iraq War Lottery

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a subplot to this marvelous event. Presidental candidate Dean has been betting his campaign on the news continuing to be bad in the aftermath to the Iraqi war from now until next November. In contrast, Presidental non-candidate Hillary Clinton has been talking about as tough about the war as a liberal can get away with.

With Saddam captured, the chance that bad will dominate good in Iraqi news well into next fall's election is far less likely. Angry Dean's candidacy is in trouble. Hillary may or may not become a candidate in 2004, but she is well-positioned for 2008.

I doubt either cares a twit for the long-suffering Iraqi people, and this event says nothing about the ability of either to lead. But Hillary has played and won this war lottery, while Dean has lost and lost badly.

And those who deserve praise are the US soldiers and Iraqi informants who made the capture possible not those who've been playing politics with the war.

Re:Not bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Sorry, but weren't WMDs what this invasion was supposedly about? Or has that all been forgotten?

It wasn't about THAT either.

You heard the WMD argument because IF they were found, the war would be 100% justified. If not found, we could say he USED to have WMDs... ... which was frickin obvious... Don Rumsfeld *sold* them to Hussein in the 80's, knowing full well they may be used against "Communist guerrillas" (Reagan-era documents and Congressional testimony prove this).

There will be no public fair trial for Saddam. He doesn't need one- he's guilty, right? There will be no airing of right-wing CIA dirty secrets.

Clue: 5 days before Saddam invaded Kuwait and remarking on the Iraqi builduyp, the US Ambassador to Iraq publicly stated that they considered the impending Iraq-Kuwait war a "regional dispute" and would not get involved.

I don't know if it was the promises of FREE OIL WELLS that made Bush Sr. reverse his statements. Maybe encouraging a war was the most logical way to "step in" and secure a base. Times were changing - the Cold War was over - South Asia could no longer pit the US against the USSR for whoever offered the best deal and Big Oil sensed a power shift to where the oil was produced...

I'm having trouble understanding the significance

[PollGuy]

Was Saddam on the US's list of the most wanted Iraqis? Which playing card was he? Help me put this in context, media!!!

Re:bin laden..

[Skjellifetti]

But what I don't understand is why so many people know so little about Iraq.

Especially yourself.

If there is a democracy in Iraq the ones who will be elected will be shiites leader... And the first thing they will do is transform Iraq into an islamic state like Iran.

You haven't been paying attention. Most of the Shi'ite leaders in Iraq have said that they do not want a theocracy dominated Islamic Republic like the one in Iran. The theocracy in Iran is despised by most Iranians at present. The Ayatollas spend too much time worrying about Islamic morality and not enough time figuring out how to provide jobs for the unemployed. The Islamic leadership in Iraq can read the handwriting and don't want to get caught in the same trap as the Iranian leadership. Iraq is also a nation with some very significant minorities (Kurds, Sunni Arab, Chaldean Christians). The Shi'ite leadership in Iraq wants to preserve Iraq as a whole nation. They recognize that if they impose an Iranian style Islamic Republic, they will likely have a civil war on their hands.

OK, two caveats. First, there are minority views in the Shi'ite community who do want an Islamic Republic, but they seem to be just that: a minority. Second, the majority also seems to want some kind of nod toward Islam in the Constitution. But before you get too bent out of shape, several West European nations have official churches (IIRC, Norway has the Lutherans and England the Church of England), so would an official acknowledgement that Islam is the religion of Iraq be that different from official practice in the West?

Re:bin laden..

[Martin Blank]

"Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help." -- Osama bin Laden

When he brought his 9,000 Arab fighters to support the Afghans in their conflict against the Soviet occupation army, hacking out the mountain trails with his construction equipment, building hospitals and arms dumps, he became a war hero. ... He and his comrades never saw "evidence of American help" in Afghanistan, he told me, but he must have been aware of the CIA's presence. -- Robert Fisk

And, at risk of alienating those who automatically assume Fox News to lie about everything...

Dispelling the CIA-Bin Laden Myth

Re:Clinton and Bush

[tomstdenis]

"People deserve a democracy, and any step in that direction is a positive one."

It's funny you should say that... Oh right, the republicans were elected... sure....

Tom

Re:bin laden..

[ElGuapoGolf]

That's slightly wrong.

Most of the population over here is smart enough to realize they're two different people.

Most of the population over here was dumb enough to forget all about that whole "weapons of mass destruction" lie, and dumb enough to think that Saddam planned 9/11.

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.

Re:The Election's over...

[Anenga]

Saddam supported al-Qaeda. There's oodles of evidence for that. He even supported a terrorist training camp called Salman Pak that had an airplane where they trained terrorists to hijack airplanes. Sure, there is no non-refutable direct link, but you can't ignore all the amounting evidence.

More came out today, from The Telegraph:

Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary 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. [...]

"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," he said. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."

It's quite silly just to dismiss Saddam as having "no connection" to 9/11. How, exactly, do you know that? Are you saying you have better intelligence than the #1 Government in the world? Give me a break.

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.

Ooooooooooillllllll!! It's all about oil!! Our zionist, imperalist thirst for oil! That mantra is so sad it's now became cliche. Nevermind if Bush really wanted oil he could of just lifted the sanctions. Or how about that story from the NYTimes where Saddam offered Bush all his oil if he didn't attack, yet Bush still went forward with Operation Iraqi Freedom? Or why didn't we take Iraq's oil during the first Gulf War? Hmmm?

Re:bin laden..

[Anonymous Coward]

A billion seconds ago was 1972 - a billion seconds is a mere 31.7 years.

A billion minutes is about 1901 years, so that would put a billion minutes ago at around 102AD. Now, I may be no fancy city slicker lawyer, but my bible says Geezus died in his 30s, and was born in 1AD. That would mean that a billion minutes ago, Jesus had been dead for about 70 years. Now, there are those Christians who would argue that Jesus is not dead, in which case there's no point in mentioning that he wasn't a billion minutes ago.

A billion hours ago puts us about 114,000 years. The period 2,000,000BC-3,500BC is considered Stone Age (Middle Paleolithic), so this one's probably correct.

A billion dollars ago is actually slightly worse than you suggest: about four hours. US total expenditure is currently around 2 trillion dollars a year.

How do they know it's him?

[mark-t]

The articles didn't address this point.

How do they know it isn't one of his supposedly many body doubles?

It's all well and fine if it really is the guy, but the articles just say that he's captured and don't even hint at what (if any) mechanisms were used to confirm his identity.

Re:WMD && Oil != the issue

[j3110]

Well, if you want to be the conservative conspiracy theorist, then I think this post deserves just the opposite. Here's the story I heard.

Iraq switched it's oil from USD to the Euro. The Euro soared to 2x the USD. Iraq made a LOT of money (twice as much as they would have). OPEC contemplated the same. Bush starts his campaign against Iraq on faked evidence without questioning it at all. He accuses Saddam of attacking his own people with mustard gas, but the people he attacked were the Kurds that Turkey attack every day, but are still our allies. He accuses Saddam of helping in 9/11 with no verifiable evidence to back it up. He accuses Saddam of developing and having biological weapons when the UN inspectors said otherwise. Most of Europe are pissed because he wants to attack and has never given a good reason other than "overthrow Saddam", which of itself is not a reason for war. Now we have "won" the war, the oil will be sold on the USD instead of the Euro, and the OPEC will think twice before any of it's members switch to the Euro.

If oil was traded in the Euro, every oil trader with USD in their bank would have to switch over to Euro, which would flood the market with USD, and make the Euro scarce. The biggest longterm effect would be us having to pay as much or more than the Europeans for our gas. This was very much over oil, but only because Saddam found a way to stick a knife in our side with it. I don't condone the use of violence for economical reasons. You'll have to admit, or be a small minority of people, that this war was economical, because that's what the history books will show, because no compelling evidence was shown for any other reason. I don't think many people are going to buy the "Liberation" since the Kurds won't get their own place to live, and will be killed, harassed, and oppressed by Turkey, Iran, and Iraq for many more years.

Re:bin laden..

[Wingnut64]

Yes, I would. However, I would not want France nor any other country to come in and do it.

Re:bin laden..

[letxa2000]

These soldiers aren't as accepting of political propganda as you think. They volunteered to defend America, not engage in imperialist occupation and trade potshots with neighborhood thugs.

That you think that our military is going to be up against huge, conventional battles such as what we prepared for in the Cold War just shows how out-of-date your thinking is. Any soldier who has volunteered to service in the military in the last 10 years knew very well that they might be trading potshots with neighborhood thugs. That's been mostly what our military has done for the last decade.

As for imperialist occupation, you'll find that's more of a liberal stick up your ass rather than reality. Soldiers aren't robots and have minds of their own so not all of them will always agree with American foreign policy. But I'll bet more of them agree with us being in Iraq than agreed with us being in Somalia, and I'll bet the percentage of soldiers that agree with their mission is higher than the percentage of liberals in the U.S. that agree with the mission.

There's a reason morale is in the shitter.

I suspect because they've been subjected to guerilla warfare with no end in sight and no particular achievements since Bagdhad fell. I suspect the capture of Saddam is going to help troop morale tremendously. It's probably going to help our morale back in the states, too. And, yes, it's probably going to score Bush a boost in the polls.

Economy is improving, we've captured Saddam Hussein... Things aren't looking so bad this Christmas. Funny how when things go well in the U.S. the only ones that lose out are the liberals. :)

Hell no, no international court

[Augusto]

Why should he be afforded the priviledge of the "international court"?

Hand him to the Iraqis, and fill the jury with Kurds. They sure deserve to try him after all he's done to his own people, and you can bet the Kurds will reach the right judgement.

Why didn't he flee?

[gcaseye6677]

Saddam is one dumb (sheep) fucker. Anyone who raids a couple of billion U.S. dollars from the central bank before fleeing Baghdad has no need to stay in Iraq. Why isn't he sipping a pina colada on a beach somewhere? Fortunately, his own stupidity did him in.

Re:bin laden..

[CrowScape]

Everytime he fired at one of our aircraft patroling the no-fly zone he violated the agreement. Everytime he failed to provide adequete documentation that he had no WMDs (the burden of proof rested on him) he violated the agreement (and find me one country before the war besides Iraq that contended he provided adequete documentation to prove he had no WMDs, not even France made that claim). The charges that he was not trying to acquire WMDs has never been proven false, only a single CIA source about Saddam attempting to aquire Uranium from Nigeria, which was never used as justification for the war. Reports from Iraqi officials was that he was indeed attempting to acquire WMDs, only very ineptly. As for terror ties, not disproven, but currently tenuous (although the arguement was not that he had ties but what would happen if he created them. It's important to listen to people otherwise you might do something stupid, like start a war.)

BTW: I thought neo-cons was a term that was supposed to describe those who subscribed to the Bush doctrine, in which case I'd like to know when they got the time machine to go back and attack Clinton for bombing an asprin factory.

Re:bin laden..

[iconian]

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

The issue is not that simple. You make it sound as if the weight decision to join the military is the same for everyone. The fact of the matter is the majority of the people who are in the military are from your lower income bracket. Talk to them without the threat of an dishonorable discharge and most of them will admit to you that they joined primarily because they needed the money (a la Jessica Lynch for college). These people did not have to make the same decision as those in your upper income class.

If you look at the members of current administration (or any adminstration), many of them do not have relatives in the military. Making the decision to go to war is certainly easier if you don't have a family member in the military. Instead of taxation without representation, it's military confrontation without representation. That's why folks like Charles Rangel advocate equal military responsibility to force politicians to think of their position on war.

Re:bin laden..

[TheLinuxSRC]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - At least 3,240 civilians died across Iraq during a month of war, including 1,896 in Baghdad, according to a five-week Associated Press investigation.

And if you do the math, Saddam Hussein killed roughly twice that per month during his ~25 year tenure as leader. 2,000,000 Iraqis killed by Hussein over 25 years is appx 6700 innocent civilians per month. Kinda puts a new outlook on the losses, no?

Re:Its comical

[Damek]

If the topic is "Saddam's capture and its effects on Iraq", then I don't see how any of this other stuff isn't involved. When you view the world as a series of specific, unconnected issues, and try to deal with them one at a time, you just end up screwing things up worse and worse as time goes on.

What Now?

[Cruxus]

So now the leader of a government that has committed countless crimes against humanity has been captured. I'm sure the Iraqis are relieved. Now what? The U.S.-led occupation of Iraq has not exactly been going smoothly, and the United States has been shooting itself in the foot by denying a greater role for traditional allies like France and Germany and for international institutions like the United Nations.

Saddam Hussein's capture is nothing more than a media distraction to redirect the U.S. public from the Bush administration's foreign policy failures.

Don't get me wrong: I'm as glad as anyone else that such a cruel, autocratic man can now be brought to justice, but it is still important to keep a critical eye on our government.

Re:Wrong

[jafac]

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.

The difference is - the people who supposedly buried them are ALIVE TODAY, and it is (should be, if Bush had comitted enough troops) a trivial matter to get these people into custody and question them. And the documentation behind their orders is all sitting in buildings we supposedly control.

If we have not found ANY trace of WMD by now - then there just plain are none.

Re:Wrong

[iconian]

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.

To the best of my knowledge, Egyptian mummies and their relatives and friends and children and grandchildren and great grandchildren have been long dead and clues to the location of these artifacts died with them. That is the reason we are still finding things in Egypt. People who know the location of the WMDs are still alive. If we don't find anything within the next 10 years, it's unlikely that we'll find anything at all.

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.

Let's say that the IRS accuses you of tax evasion. You initially decided to cooporate because you have the proverbial nothing-to-hide. They decided to search your house of receipts, inquire into your book report grades, medical records, drug-use, and sexual activites. You then decided that you did not want to cooporate anymore so you get a lawyer. This sort of thing happens all the time and you have talking heads in the media always saying: "Well, if she had nothing to hide, she would have cooperated". Can someone really say that you are guilty because you stopped cooperating with the authorities? Putting on my tin-foil hat, it is in the interest of the authorities, who cannot find evidence of wrong-doing but still suspects you of wrong-doing, to get you to stop cooperating. According to Scott Ritter, former-UN weapons inspector who gave a talk at my school a while back, this was one of the scenarios:

U.N. Weapons Inspector: We need a place to look. What does your satellite recon-photos say?
U.S. Intelligence: Check the Baath party house.

U.N. weapons inspector checked and found nothing. One week later...

U.N. Weapons Inspector: We need a place to look. Suggestions?
U.S. Intelligence: Check the Baath party house again. I think there's something there.

U.N. weapons inspector checked but met with some mild resistance. They found nothing. Two weeks later...

U.N. Weapons Inspector: Leads?
U.S. Intelligence: Check the Baath party house again. I'm pretty sure there's something there.

U.N. Weapons Inspector approached the Baath party home of Saddam. They were refused entrance.

Scott Ritter said that the U.N. Weapons inspector was a tool of the U.S. designed to fail.

To those of you who believe that there are WMDs in Iraq, what kind of evidence you like to see to that would convince you otherwise? If there is no set of evidence that would disprove your belief, then your argument is based strictly on faith.

With all that said, any points about WMD are really moot points. US is in Iraq now. Those of you on the left who think we should withdraw immediately, that is a mistake. If we do so, the region will end up a bigger mess than when we entered.

Re:Let the knee-jerk, left-wing responses begin!

[0x0d0a]

Bush tends to be on the conservative side. You don't have to be left-wing -- just centrist -- to criticize him, though I don't think many people actually hate him. He's made a fair number of political mistakes, and doesn't have a reputation for political savvy.

Ashcroft, however, is another story. I don't think *anyone* I know thinks Ashcroft is good news. Ashcroft is a real life incarnation of what Orwell warned us of, and not the kind of person that ever should have reached office.

(I just have to ask...would you rather he still be in power, or in prison?)

It depends. Is the *real* choice that you're giving us the option of invading Iraq against international uproar and throwing him in jail versus having him still in power and us *not* invading Iraq? I'd have prefered to leave well enough alone, actually. We may not have liked Nixon, but neither did we want the Russians to invade, occupy, and toss him in jail, you know?

Re:who cares?

[Glock27]

Wow, a comment that was completely, factually incorrect scores +5 Insightful (along with some Interesting and Informative ratings).

Sad, really...

(And some people around here think Fox News is biased... :P)

Re:who cares?

[FurryFeet]

The U.S. cann't attack any nation.... blah blah blah.... Well pal we did, and the world is now a much safer place for it.

You know, my country was never afraid if Iraq. We're halfway across the world, plus have no beef with them. I think pretty much the rest of the world --including the US-- could have said that.
Now, I feel that the US can and will invade my country, kill my elected leaders and "liberate" us from our own uses and traditions. Why? Hell, because they can.
No, pal, the world was a lot safer with Saddam than it is with Bush.

Re:bin laden..

[CardiffMan]

Economy is improving, we've captured Saddam Hussein... Things aren't looking so bad this Christmas. Funny how when things go well in the U.S. the only ones that lose out are the liberals. :)

I'm a liberal, and I fail to see how I lose out. Let's look at my recent circumstances and see if I'm missing something that should make me sad:

• I just got a nice severance package from a big company as I left to join a small one.
• I get to loaf for two weeks between the old job and the new one.
• The Sun is shining.
• The U.S. Supreme Court just upheld bans on soft money in Federal election campaigns.
• As a result of a war that I endorsed (not that you were listening), Saddam Hussein is now captured.
• As a result of a war that I endorsed, thousands of people have died, the French hate the U.S., and Bush might get reelected.
• Howard Dean was just endorsed by Al Gore.
• The dollar is in the dumper.

Some good, some bad. Most of the bad won't affect my personal lifestyle directly. I guess I win. I agree with the rest of your comments. There's a difference between a liberal and a crypto-Marxist.

Re:Not bad.

[Oliver Defacszio]

Pff, you don't think for one second that the U.S. is going to stand for any justice but its own here, do you? Do you? The american ego is as big as its debt, and there should be no doubt of who will be dolling out the punishment to justify the immense cost.

Re:bin laden..

[Directrix1]

Jeez, I've never seen so many mod points carelessly tossed out to ACs. Anyways, the sanctions obviously weren't aimed at killing the people of Iraq. America is too PC to do that in the first place. The intentions of America were in the right place. The method chosen was wrong. If a bad consequence is realized only in retrospect, than obviously this bad consequence was not intentional.

Saddam purposefully killed brutally, ruthlessly, and without pity. That is what was wrong with this corner of the world, not America trying to right one of its old wrongs. A brutal dictator has been taken down as the result of a relatively mild war. This is obviously a major victory. And not just for America and the Iraqi people, but for the promotion of this new form of modern warfare.

Re:You know better than you president?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link

He's not going to go public on circumstantial evidence again, he'd be ripped to shreds by the press. Let's see what his story is when the investigations are done in Iraq and the election is closer.

The preponderance of evidence is what the intelligence community operates on, though. So that's why their prevailing opinion is a linkage.

Feel free to remember to nag me in October about this post. I'll have to buy you a beer if it turns out to be wrong. :)

Re:bin laden..

[fucksl4shd0t]

Open a history book that goes back more than three years.

Make it 70 years, so we can be sure to cover our American oppression and dominance and manipulation in the Middle East as completely as possible.

Re:Wrong

[ag0ny]

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.

That would possibly be true IF the amount of resources used to search for those WMD were the same as the resources given to archeologists, which aren't. Your statement is false.

How much money has been spent (as of now) on this war? Around $80 billion, if I recall correctly. Give that money to a university on the condition that they will use that money to excavate the desert, and in a few months you'd find all the sand removed, all the archeological sites and tombs discovered, digged, catalogued and restored. Oh, and you'd find also a few museums right there, and the scientific community and the egyptians would be making big bucks by filming documentaries for the National Geographic...

Re:You know better than you president?

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

The preponderance of evidence is what the intelligence community operates on, though. So that's why their prevailing opinion is a linkage.

I know, but (indirect) linkage to Al Queda doesn't automatically imply involvement in (or even knowledge of) the 9/11 plans. Even if there is evidence that the actual 9/11 attackers were trained at Salman Pak, that still doesn't prove Saddam knew about 9/11.

(I know I'm nitpicking, but that's nothing compared to what a lot of Arabs are going to do. I'm only trying to show how hard it is to prove Saddam was knowingly involved.)

Re:bin laden..

[rjung2k]

How can Saddam Hussein have ties to al Qaeda when the two are mortal enemies? Or have you forgotten that Osama Bin Laden (yeah, that guy) actually volunteered to have his al Qaeda flunkies go and wage war against Iraq during the first Gulf War?

Saying Saddam and al Qaeda "have ties" only proves you are a clueless tool.

Re:Good. So? No, So good!

[BCGlorfindel]

Also, we gave weight to the UN's heretofore meaningless resolutions.

How can a non UN sanctioned war against a UN member nation give weight to UN resolutions? It gave weight to American approved UN resolutions, that's a VERY important distinction.

Did you notice that we have control of two borders of Iran (Afghanistan and Iraq)? Did you notice how easily the Iranians caved in on the production of weapons grade uranium? Think that is a coincidence?

But in the long term has the world as a whole been made more stable? Is shear brute force really the best way to stamp out every last evil bastion in the world? Has it become more or less attractive to have a WMD program(think North Korea)? Are nations more or less likely to defend themselves with those weapons? And that's assuming the American government has and holds to a benevelent agenda. Just because military action shows more immediate results does not mean it is the most effective means of discouraging terrorism.

Re:bin laden..

[shaitand]

"suppose you're saying that the law of any local government justifies any actions it takes against its populace as long as it acts within its own frame of law. Genocide, torture, and rape for political dissent and rebellion is all okay as long as that government says it is, right?"

No I'm saying there isn't a single government in power today (INCLUDING THE US) that wouldn't, and in fact hasn't done all of the above for the same and/or lesser reasons. That makes the US claiming it's form of government is in any superior to the one iraq had on the basis of crimes our own government is equally guilty of hypocracy of the worst kind.

"If you can find me some supporting evidence that they liked it, I'd appreciate it, but I doubt that you can."

Finding supporting evidence isn't the difficult part at all. Finding supporting evidence you won't brush aside claiming it was because the people were afraid to say otherwise is. Of course the US could spout the EXACT SAME propoganda about any ruler and have it pass. It works better in a middle eastern country where there are bitterly warring religous factions who will of course oppose any ruler, works like a charm, pick any ruler and the opposing factions will be against him.

"Well, what DO you consider a bad guy to be if you don't consider Saddam and his sons to be bad guys for torturing their people? Don't tell me that you're one of these types who actually believes that there is no such thing as right and wrong. If you didn't you wouldn't be protesting the war on Iraq so loudly, so tell us what it would take to be an evil person."

The only WRONG thing that comes to mind at the moment is ignoring logical objective conclusions on an emotional basis or imagined sense or right and wrong. I belive there are correct and incorrect actions, the terms right and wrong fits as well, but I don't believe they are defined by moral or emotional means or inherient 6th senses. I believe they are defined by an analysis of goals, outcomes, and data. I don't believe in EVIL people. If I were to take my pick, one of my criteria would be that his behavior would have to rank him the bottom 10% of human actions if each individual on earth were put in his position, with his upbringing and background. Since EVERY ruling body on the face of this earth throughout the history of mankind has acted in similar fashion, I'd say it's a fair bet he doesn't qualify that criteria.

The moral and/or religious definitions of evil go against human nature. Evolution did not program our nature with the intent of making accepting it a bad thing. I honestly fail to comprehend why people believe a supreme being who defines what is right and wrong would create mankind with an inherient nature that was wrong by his definition.

The war on iraq is one thing, it's been and being waged for rather obvious reasons. Foothold in the middle east, tightening of our grip worldwide and sending a clear message that we are the global rulers, OIL, an excuse to establish another puppet government and thus conquer more territory without making it seem like we are vicious conquerors, and of course spending ridiculous resources equivelent to using a crane to swat a fly (such spending boosts the economony, with real dollars and percieved dollars that turn into real dollars in the stock market).

No, the war is all fine and dandy and arguably needed to save our economy. Pretending the war is about saving people we've been murdering and starving for 10yrs is a slight on the intelligence of anyone with an IQ of triple digits, basically anyone who has an excuse for not being culled from the human species.

Re:Saddam at the Vet's

[Richard M. Nixon]

In Arabic culture a man's beard has a huge importance and to shave Saddam's beard and display his pictures before and after the shave is one of the biggest forms of humiliation possible in arabic culture.

Saddam isn't exactly known as an orthodox muslim. He's more of a millionaire playboy who writes romance novels. No more martinis for him I imagine.

the man who attacked my country with rockets during the first Gulf war

We gave him some pretty good weapons, but I never heard that he had any ICBMs. When and where exactly in the United States were we attacked?

I say it again, whoever edited that video sequence knew what he was doing. Damn fine entertainment.

I think it was the producers of Girls Gone Wild.