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

Not bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally got the guy that attacked the world trade cen... oh, wrong guy?

Well... so he had weapons of mass dest... no?

Re:Not bad.

[WIAKywbfatw]

Well, I'm glad that Saddam Hussein is no longer at large, but am I the only one who's a little bit disappointed that, in a news conference in which Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez (the US commander of coalition ground forces in Iraq), talked about "closure", there was no mention of weapons of mass destruction?

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

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:Not bad.

[madprof]

Great - let's go and invade China then. They've been imprisoning, torturing, killing and generally oppressing their population for decades.
Do you remember the troops turning on protestors in Tiananmen Square?

Or is it that Iraq is strategically useful and that even pressing China about human rights seems to cause problems with selling them goods and services?

Re:Not bad.

[CaptainBaz]

Sorry, but weren't WMDs what this invasion was supposedly about?

You misspelt "oil".

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:Not bad.

[senior.ee]

That is funny. My younger sister was with the U.S. Navy at the time and she was abroad near Iraq. She said that their first name for the "war for iraqi freedom" was Operation Iraqi Liberation. They got rid of that idea when someone thought about the acronym :)

Re:Not bad.

[krappie]

"Spelt" is a type of wheat. The word you are looking for is "spelled," specifically "misspelled." And you are an illiterate buffoon.

"Spelt" is not a type of wheat. Spelt is a member of the same grain family but is an entirely different species. And now you are the buffoon.

First photoshops

[objekt]

http://www.spiceweasel.net/albums/miscellanea/sadd ammk2.jpg

http://www.worth1000.com/web/media/3185/saddam%2 0c laus.jpg

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.

[_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: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: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.

$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:Naysayers

[NMerriam]

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

GOOD JOB GUYS!!!!

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.

Bush

[danimrich]

I hope this doesn't mean George will win the elections again!

Re:Bush

[qwertyatwork]

Again?

Re:Bush

[JFMulder]

You mean he won the first time? ;)

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!

For any of those...

[mgcsinc]

For any of those who think this whole story is offtopic, just rememeber that for many this is basically the only place they get news, and someone had to let them know.

And in true Slashdot tradition...

[herko_cl]

We celebrate it with...
"...reporting that Saddam Hissein..."
Spelling errors!

Re:who cares?

[USAPatriot]

I'm sure the families of the scores of thousands of people that Saddam has murdered, tortured, and raped care about him being captured. The people celebrating in the streets seem to be caring.

One of the last century's worst thugs is now in custody, and the "insightful" comment around here is "who cares"? Get some sense of history.

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.

The important question

[iamatlas]

Does he run linux?

Re:The important question

[AndroidCat]

Definitely not Linux. When they pulled him out of his hole, Clippy was on his laptop screen: "I see you're trying to devise an escape plan..."

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?

Re:bin laden..

[Anonymous Coward]

my blood is burning for Osama...

Me too!! He is like, sooooooo hot!!!

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.

It was the RIAA

[harriet nyborg]

According to an RIAA spokesperson, "we caught him downloading copyrighted material from his a cellar in Tikrit."

"And we hope with his capture this will bring an end to all illegal downloading."

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

[Glock27]

Were we able to find Osama bin Laden? No.

You could have said something similar about Saddam yesterday.

The correct statement (with proper tenses) is: "Have we been able to find Bin Laden? Not yet.".

Bin Laden isn't tied to a single country as was Saddam. His operation has been greatly hindered, and he'll go down...eventually.

In the meantime, don't mistake the fact that this is a great victory for the coalition and President Bush, and a major psychological blow for the Baathist resistance. :-)

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

[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! =)

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

[lordholm]

I found the post to be very insightful, but there is one thing I must disagree with: "I suspect that The world preferd the Isolationist America of 1906 or 1936 to the Gulliver Unchained of 2003."

This is plainly not true. I am a European and I know how the debates went here, when Bush was elected. The big problem was that he withdrew the US from the international arena; especially the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The gripe when Bush became interested in foreign affairs after 9/11 was not that US invaded Afganistan, most people in Europe agreed with this. The opposition is always the loudest though.

The real critique came when Bush decided to invade Iraq. The reason people generally opposed this in Europe is (I asume) that Saddam had made no real agressive moves, and thus the US/UK conducted an unprovoked aggression against Iraq.

Of course, while a lot of European voices were raised against the invasion, a lot of voices were raised for it as well.

If viewed from as a state to state matter, a lot of things in the decision to invade are discussable. However, when viewing the invasion from a moral and philosophical point of view, there really isn't much to discuss. Ayn Rand said: "The evil of the world is made possible by only the sanction that you give it"

Oh well, enough ranting!

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:bin laden..

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop looking for something to whine about ... please!

Well sorry to wake you up from your erotic Bush world dreams, but capturing Saddam IS pretty irrelevant and you're still fighting an illegal war.

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.

Darl captured

[close_wait]

So, after 9 months during which the alleged Weapons of Mass IP Infringment failed to materialize, they finally got him. I hope they string him up.

Just out of curiosity, why *was* Darl in Tikrit?

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?

Iraqi information minister's response

[understyled]

Saddam has not been captured. He did not bury himself in a cellar. The infidels are committing suicide at the gates of the great fortress in which he resides. No worries.

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...

[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: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.

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".

Ace of Spades

[Aragorn DeLunar]

How ironic that they found the 'Ace' in the Hole.

Re:Good News

[bigjnsa500]

You are complete wrong. You should really research stuff before post falsely. But alas, you Dems are just hate mongerers.

First, Halliburton was awarded the no-bid contract by your favorite pal in 1999. Previously their WAS a bid process and Haliburton lost in 1997. Then Slick Willie did away with the bids and just gave it to Haliburton. Yes, that's right CLINTON!

Secondly, Halliburton didn't overcharge the taxpayers, their subcontractor for fuel supply charged THEM that amount.

Thirdly, I will never understand why people think the economy is in the power of the president. Does he hold your hand when you buy stuff? Does he tell you what to buy? Uh.. NO! Get real.

Fourthly, health insurance. It costs a lot because of the malpractice suits and drug costs. You want health insurance? Go back to school and get a real education, then a good job. But I refuse to pay for healthcare of low-lifes happy in their burger flipping career.

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:The Election's over...

[kimota]

>Well, Election 2004 ended this morning. Like him or not, Bush is the man right now.

"Right now" is nearly a year away from the elections themselves. GHW Bush was "the man" in 1991 but still managed to blow the elections in '92.

Things that can still hurt W:

1. another terrorist attack (unless it's so bad that this (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/ 20/185048.shtml) occurs, which may or may not remove W.

2. not finding Osama. If they can get him in August or September of next year, *then* the election is over.

3. a trial for Saddam that brings to light all the dirty stuff the US did back when he wasn't considered the anti-Christ.
You're right, though, it could well start late enough to be a non-issue.

4. more insurgents (despite what country they're actually from) and more quagmire for a supposed "mission accomplished"

5. North Korea

6. An economic downturn, or a rally that peters out

7. what else? I'm curious to hear others' comments.

Frankly, if I were a Macchiavellian bastard who wanted to stay in power, I'd arrange to have several 'necessary' military actions (of the apparently non-quagmire type) going on at the same time as the elections. As long as it's considered treason to question those actions, there will be a majority of people who think a continuity of leadership is necessary, so I know I could be re-elected.

--Kimota!

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.

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?!

Under gentoo

[pagaman]

root@iraq# emerge unmerge saddam-hussien
root@iraq# emerge democracy
Calculating dependencies
!!! all ebuilds that could satisfy "democracy" have been masked.

!!! Error calculating dependencies. Too unstable. Please correct.
root@iraq# emerge friendly-dictator
Calculating dependencies
!!! all ebuilds that could satisfy "friendly-dictator" have been masked.

!!! Error calculating dependencies. Could knife us in the back. Please correct.

root@iraq# emerge friendly-dictator-council
Calculating dependencies ...done!
>>> emerge (1 of 10) app-admin/friendly-dictator1 to /iraq

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:bin laden..

[Richard Allen]

It's called empathy. Put yourself in their shoes. Imagine your mom got raped in front of you, and then they cut off her breast and through it on the ground.
Imagine your brother looked longingly at one of Saddam's son's mistresses without knowing and was fed to the lions.
Imagine ... oh never mind ...
It's called empathy. That's what makes it relevant.

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

[Tom Rothamel]

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

For good reason, mind you. The US could not join any ICC treaty, as the terms of the treaty are not acceptable under the US constitution. More pragmatically, it seems quite likely that the tranzis would use the ICC to bring frivilous charges against various officials in the US.

War-crimes tribunals should be short-term, focusing on the results of a single conflict and then dissolved. To do otherwise leads to mission creep, and the defining down of crimes against humanity merely to give the tribunal something to do.

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:bin laden..

[Anonymous Coward]

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. Oh, BUT WE'RE SAFER! FOX NEWS SAYS SO!

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.

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:Random ramblings. (Ignore this post.)

[soccerisgod]

(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.

Pardon me, but have I been missing something? As far as I know the UN didn't "go along" with the war. It merily supports "reconstruction effords" now and has recognized the "coalation of the willing" as the current temporary governing force of iraq.

Re:Random ramblings. (Ignore this post.)

[Anonymous Coward]

(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.

You misunderstand the situation (as does almost everyone it seems). The deal was (and this was supported by the UN), as long as Iraq didn't interfere with the weapons inspectors, he would be fine. If not, he would be attacked. He interfered with the inspectors, so the USA said "hey UN, he broke his part of the bargain, it's time to bomb him". But France, Germany, and Russia had lent him a lot of money, and knew that if Saddam were deposed, they would be forced to forgive Iraq's debts. So they used the WWII/Cold War-relic positions on the security council to block the attack. Ironically, the USA attacked Iraq to enforce a UN resolution that the UN refused to enforce, in an attempt to protect the UN's own authority.

Finding weapons of mass destruction was (and still is) totally irrelevant. Saddam broke a deal that protected his regime, and the UN refused to enforce their own law. That is the reason for this war. That has always been the reason for this war.

Re:bin laden..

[Anonymous Coward]

a quotation from Saddam's Profile by BBC World: "The United States had quietly supported his war against Iran. They turned a blind eye to Iraq's human rights record and to atrocities like the gassing of the Kurdish villagers of Halabja" - looks like you woke up a bit late to save them. and please, don't be such an idiot and try to understand: US-forced UN sanctions during the last decade caused terrific damages to the Iraqi infrastructure, hospitals etc. - those millions I'm talking about!

It's official...

[Munra]

It's official... Osama Bin Laden has been declared World Hide and Seek champion ;O)

Manta

Re:who cares?

[Richard_at_work]

Its interesting to note that with all the effort that went into trying to put Saddam into a hole in the ground during the war, he hid in one voluntarily.

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...

oh come on

[wrinkledshirt]

This is important if for no other reason than that we have a concept of justice, that people should pay for their crimes.

Funny -- in my view justice isn't being served here. The crimes that this man is responsible for went unpunished (and, in fact, were given the unofficial okay) at the time they were carried out.

This man is paying for Bin Laden's crimes. The war started with 9/11 and took a major (albeit preplanned) detour here.

This article is a lie!

[Mohammed Al-Sahaf]

Today the victorious Iraqi forces stormed the White House and arrested the tyrant war criminal Bush. Now we have apprehended the leader of the international criminal gang of bastards, we will be sure to bring him to trial for his war crimes.

The imperialist U.S. and British forces are like a snake that slithers all over the place but that doesn't control anything! Do not believe the lies, my friend! They are lying every day. They are lying always, and mainly they are lying to their public opinion.

Re:bin laden..

[thelaw]

two things.

1) the proof is in the putting - al qaeda was cranking out incriminating audio propaganda non-stop. in fact, in one tape, bin laden claimed that attacks on the world trade center were actually self-defense, and therefore supported by islamic law.

2) the presence in guantanamo bay of lots of known al qaeda operatives who have detailed their planning procedures for the september 11 attacks is a pretty good clue.

3) bin laden had already established a pattern of conduct with the USS cole and khobar towers bombings that made him particularly interesting to international terrorism experts. keep in mind that the burden of proof in a legal context is "beyond reasonable doubt." if you have any contrary evidence that can cast doubt on these allegations (and i mean more than just contradicting them - "no he didn't...."), then let's bring it on.

jon

Re:who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of people have been killed by terrorists on US soil, now that terrorism includes bank robbers, kidnappers, school kids caught with butter knives in their cars, and anyone involed in peaceful demonstrations.

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.

Re:Forgetting one or two things

[cygnus]

China has nuclear weapons.
Iraq does not.

how about Burma then? oh no, wait:

Iraq has oil.
Burma does not.

Re:who cares?

[Tony Hoyle]

There were leaked photographs from a different angle that clearly showed:

(1) That there can't have been more than 50 people there.
(2) There were clearly more press than Iraquis.
(3) The troops had blocked off the surrounding streets which were deserted - presumably to stop anyone not part of the 'demonstration' from taking part.

Uh, no.

[The Tyro]

There were six deaths and 1400 injuries in the original WTC bombing in 1993...

But don't take my word for it... here's the Wikipedia entry for the incident

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.

Re:bin laden..

[Txiasaeia]

"the proof is in the putting..."

Spoken like a true golf addict :) It's actually "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting."

Re:who cares?

[FatherOfONe]

Let's see a post from Anonymous Coward....

Blah blah blah.... We hate anything American does.

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. We gave up British, American and Italian lives for this (sorry if I missed any other country), and this is a huge day.

You watch too much BBC and CNN. Remember there is a GOOD reason the Iraqie Bob hugged the CNN reporter.... and that the BBC was thrown off of a British ship.

Re:who cares?

[Pentagram]

Photo from a different angle.

Re:bin laden..

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, you idiot. How long did it take to find Saddam? OK, now go find every fucking 55 gallon drum of something.

Oh, wait, biologicals can be stored in smaller containers than that. So it took us months to find Hussein with a bounty on his head. How long do you really think it will take to find containers in a country the size of a mid sized state in the US? They could be burried anyplace. Look, Iraq had months to figure out where to hide stuff before they were attacked.

Even Clinton said that Iraq hadn't accounted for everything when he left office.

I'm so tired of people talking about this like Saddam wasn't a bad guy. You seem to forget that he did have a history of gassing the Kurds. He was using these weapons. You forget that France and Russsia were the ones supplying him and big surprise they're the ones that didn't want to go to war. France supplied the planes that applied the gas and he still owed them billions for it. So who needs this history lesson?

See your beloved Saddam now. http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

These were the people of his own country. Look at the dead children and their moms.

Do you know any real Iraqis? People who really come from there. I do. I used to work with someone who defected from there a few years before the first war whose sole job was verifying for Saddam that people he wanted executed were executed. He told me this back in 1987 before I even had a clue who Saddam was.

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: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:bin laden..

[jrnchimera]

Oh give it a rest! Saddam was the one that killed his own people. All that oil money and the 12 multimillion dollar mansions and the oppulent life style that he and his followers lived in and yet his people nearly starved *BEFRE* the sanctions!

God damned ignorant assholes.

Ever hear of Salman Pak?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Keep in mind folks that this has absolutely nothing to do with September 11

I guess you've never heard of Salman Pak. No surprise, it's received almost no coverage in the mainstream media, presumably the basis for your philosophy.

Basically, terrorists from around the world came to train on a Boeing 707 fuselage on how to take over an airplane using only knives, and infiltrate the cabin to take control of the aircraft.

Remember, don't get too many beliefs based on somebody else's view of events. Ideas are fine, beliefs are dangerous.

Try a google search, there's lots of documentation out there.

Re:Ever hear of Salman Pak?

[I Be Hatin']

I guess you've never heard of Salman Pak.

WTF? From the linked article:

Zeinab's story has since been corroborated by Charles Duelfer, the former vice chairman of UNSCOM, the U.N. weapons inspection team, which actually visited the Salman Pak camp several times.
"He saw the 707, in exactly the place described by the defectors," the Observer reported. "The Iraqis, he said, told UNSCOM it was used by police for counterterrorist training."
"Of course we automatically took out the word 'counter'," Duelfer explained. "I'm surprised that people seem to be shocked that there should be terror camps in Iraq. Like, derrrrrr! I mean, what, actually, do you expect?"

I wouldn't expect the vice chairman of UNSCOM to use phrases such as "Like derrrrrr...", for one... Oh well, maybe he picked it up from his teenage daughter.

Re:bin laden..

[William Baric]

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

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

The really funny part is that Saddam was fighting those shiites leader. For our safety, it would have been better to keep Saddam or at least keep the old regime.

Oh yes, it's a tremendous victory... for Islam!

Re:bin laden..

[scumdamn]

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

One of those interesting facts is that the attacks occured on September 11th. There were no known attacks by terrorists at a 7-11 I know of.
Of course, there was the decimation of the Circle K...

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.

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..

[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.

Its comical

[Metaldsa]

You know slashdot has a liberal crowd when a story that is clearly positive for the coalition and Bush has responses that mention:

Guatonoma Bay and illegal arrests
Bush's election being illegal
Osama Bin Laden is still free
US opposition to the International Court
No WMD has been found
If the war was about human rights then why not attack China

Some links:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89225& cid=7715 740
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?
sid=89225&c id=7715969
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89 225&cid=7716 015
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89225&cid =7716 761

Ever thought about actually dicussing the topic? Would it be too crazy to actually talk about the capture and its effects on Iraq?

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

[Keebler71]

Flat-out wrong. The incidents you mention occurred on Feb 26 and Feb 27 of 1991. Cease-fire negotiations did not begin unitl March 1st and were not accepted until the 3rd of March. In doing this research, I did find some scant references to Iraq agreeing with a Russian plan to withdraw from Kuwait. This is irrelevant since it did not meet all of the US or UN demands, nevermind the fact that Iraq was at war with coalition forces, of which Russia was not a part. This would be somewhat like Nazi Germany agreeing with Italy to end WW2.

I can find no reference that details any proof what-so-ever that there were civilians in the convoy, again just scant claims that that was the case (no pictures of references of course).

As for the Geneva convention, being a military officer, I dare say that I am more educated than you in this matter but again, a simple web search clears things up.

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

The Geneva convention outlaws attacking civilians not engaged in hostilites and outlaws attacking surrendering combatants. Unfortunately, the Geneva Convention is poorly written on this point, as it refers to civilians and surrendering combatants in the same sentance. This leads to the misinterpretation that combatants not currently engaged in combat are somehow protected. There is a tremendous difference between retreat and surrender.

Re:bin laden..

[Tackhead]

> 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. Oh, BUT WE'RE SAFER! FOX NEWS SAYS SO!

"Ma'am, your husband died doing what he volunteered to do. He got killed 'over there' because every Islamic thug we kill 'over there' is one less Islamic thug who can eventually try his luck at killing civilians 'over here', but sometimes the Islamic thugs get lucky 'over there' too. War is hell."

And since I'm really a civilian posting from behind the safety of my keyboard in the States, I'll add one more thing: "Your husband, as someone willing to put more than Slashdot karma points on the line for what he believed in, grew a pair and served, which is more than I ever did."

To all who've served in the past, and who are serving today - at home or abroad - I'll say "w00t", which is the geek equivalent of the Marines' "Semper Fi" (sorry for not knowing the Army, Navy, and Air Force equivalents!), and celebrate another victory with a nice steaming cup of Shut The Fuck Up.

Oh, and Saddam? j00=pwn3d. we>j00. Of course you fail it. Your last spider hole of a base is belong to us. Your people, for several million, welcome their new US overlords. No Natalie Portman and hot grits. All we had left was 50-grit. Your next interview is with Goatse Guy, and I suggest you listen very carefully to his advice.

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

[k98sven]

The US could not join any ICC treaty, as the terms of the treaty are not acceptable under the US constitution.

That is quite debatable. A good number of politicians feel differently.
In any case, it's a question best decided by the Supreme Court. So why not let them?

More pragmatically, it seems quite likely that the tranzis would use the ICC to bring frivilous charges against various officials in the US.

That is simply the paranoid mode of thought which leads to unilateralism. It's ridiculous.
The same argument could be used by any nation. Are we supposed to belive the USA is somehow unique?

Using the ICC for frivolous politically motivated indictments is in nobodys best interest. Any and all systems of justice require faith in the legitimacy of the legal process, you can't have justice otherwise.

War-crimes tribunals suffer from this lack of faith. A trial of the vanquished by the victors can never be considered impartial.

Faith in justice is one of the American ideals I mentioned. There is no reason besides xenophobia to think that America should not extend this faith to the international scene.

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:Father and son, bedtime chat

[aled]

In fact I copied it shamelesy from dailyroxette and forgot to mention it.
I like the CopyrightMoron moderation idea. I propose also that ./ adds Satire +1, Ironic +1, Sarcastic +3, stupid -1 and ACbrag -1 moderations.

This post should be at Insightful +5, if it isn't use your moderation points to correct the error.

Re:Father and son, bedtime chat

[anthony_dipierro]

Daddy, what is a strawman argument?

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?

Saddam-9/11 Link

[edibleplastic]

You're Wrong. The Telegraph published a report this week that the Iraqi Coalition government has found documents showing that Mohammed Atta was trained by the Palestinian Terrorist Abu Nidal in Baghdad shortly before the attacks on New York and Washington.

Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in US history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day "work programme" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ ne ws/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/1 4/ixportaltop.html

These documents are proof that Iraq and Saddam was tied to 9/11. Capturing Saddam is a wonderful victory on its own merits, but since you need proof connecting him with 9/11, here it is.

Re:Saddam-9/11 Link

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this really convince you? Over the last year we've had heaps of supposed evidence for Iraq's involvement in 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction, which was later debunked.
And now they find a memo which at the same time provides evidence for two stories that were already falsified before:
1) The Mohammed Atta-Bagdad link
2) The Niger-Iraq uranium shipment
Yeah, right!

For further 'evidence' see that same newspaper you like to cite:
- Iraq link to Sept 11 attack and anthrax is ruled out
- Bush under pressure over 'dodgy' Iraq weapons claim

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:Good. So? No, So good!

[rjamestaylor]

Saddam's capture also has nothing to do with returning my overdue library books (2 weeks late!) but what's your point?

Saddam was flaunting terms of armistice after Gulf War I, acting as if he believed he had WMDs. Looks like he didn't, and that he didn't is due to the deceit of his scientists, who lead him on to thinking they were carrying out his orders to pursue WMD development. A few years of continued indecision by the "United Nations" (ironic designation if there ever was one) lead by the complicit French and insidious Germans could have given enough time to expose the scientists' scheme and allow Saddam to replace them with willing scientists.

Remember, there was no doubt in the UN that Saddam did in fact HAVE WMD -- just that the French lead opposition to the ENFORCEMENT of UN resolutions was hearlded under the banner that Saddam was beginning to comply with their distruction after years of resistance! That we didn't find the WMDs which even the French assumed he had is truly immaterial -- he was willing to pursue them and proved time and time again he would use them.

Terrorism: he paid a bounty to Palestinian families of suicide bombers. He was a funding source of international terrorism. Maybe unrelated to 9/11 directly, but still an International Terror sponsor with an agenda to obtain WMDs.

America safer:
We are. The world recognizes that we are resolute in our determination to take the war to the terrorists. Also, we gave weight to the UN's heretofore meaningless resolutions.

War on Terrorism:
It wasn't just anti-NY or even just anti-US terrorism that Bush declared our enemy. (I'm sure you'd be yelling the other direction had he limited the battle to our enemies alone; am I not right?) It was terrorism. The Middle East is a hot-bed of terrorism with the leaders (politico-religious) inciting the common people to acts of terrorism teaching hate at every turn. Having a foothold in the Middle East in strategically positioned Iraq is a critical move to bring the war to the source of the terror.

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?

Think it is a coincidence that the third Saudi Cleric came out denouncing militaristic Islam?

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).

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.

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..

[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:WTF?

[Bootsy Collins]

But, that man (saddam) ordered the gasing that killed 5,000 civilians of his own people.

In this comment of yours, you linked to a BBC story about the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja. You may be interested to know that despite the public statements of our President and other major figures of his administration, the U.S. intelligence community suspects that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds in Halabja. See the piece written in the New York Times on January 31, 2003 by Stephen Pelletiere, who wrote:

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its own citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle, the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

The piece goes on from there. I encourage you to read it.

Re:GWI wasn't a formally declared war...

[10Ghz]

So, have you proven that those people in camp X-ray are guilty? No you have not, in fact, you haven't even charged them with any crime! You are just holding them there!

And where is the evidence saying Iraq threatened USA? Where is the evidence that they had WMD's? remember: "innocent untill proven guilty".

And here in Europe, we are innocent untill proven guilty. Law-enforcement official don't keep records on the books we borrow from the library, unlike in USA.

OK, now the real question

[Ryunosuke]

Now that the "Dark era is over", can I have my civil righst back?

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]

Bullshit. I'm not and I don't know anybody else that is. You're trolling, right?

Naah, he isn't. He's being innaccurate, but not trolling. What he doubtless meant was that roughly 70% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussain was responsible for the attacks on September 11. The frightening thing is that this figure does seem to be accurate.

The Bush government never actually *said* that Hussain was behind 9/11, but various officials, press announcements, State of the Union Addresses, etc, implied it rather strongly. Since our "liberal" media wouldn't dream of correcting the Bush government's insinuations the image of Saddam as the 9/11 mastermind stuck in the public's mind.

Re:who cares?

[HBI]

No US citizens have died from foreign terrorism on U.S. soil EVER... until GWB.

You are wrong.

Only utter lack of diligence of study, or gross bias can explain your omission. I suspect the latter.

Re:bin laden..

[canajin56]

Wrong. Please stop repeating that. The Kurds were killed in a fight between Iranian and Iraqi forces in their city. They were not the intentional targets of either sides chemical weapons. And the US Army sent in specialists after the battle, that concluded in a nice big official report that they were killed by Iranian chemical weapons, since Iraq was using Mustard Gas, but they were killed by a blood agent, which chlorine gas is not. So, IRAN accidentially killed Kurds with chemical weapons. Both sides were irresponsible for using their US weapons in a populated city, however. (That's right, both bought their chemical weapons from the US government)

While we are talking about that sort of thing, mass graves: In accordance with their religion, Muslims bury their dead as soon as possible. That is why there was such an outrage over displaying the corpses of Hussein's sons. Because it was desecrating their dead! Especially dressing them up and cleaning their wounds, which you are also not supposed to do! (To put it in a Sci-Fi context, the series Space: Above and Beyond. The aliens mutulated fallen human troops. Humans were outraged and disgusted. But it turns out that the aliens were honouring their fallen foes as they honoured their own dead. And they were outraged in turn, by humans daring to cover their fallen with dirt, or else burn them to nothing.)
But anyways, the result is that if thousands of people are killed, mass graves are really the only option. So what killed all of these people. Well, after Gulf War I, the US told the Shi'ite and the Kurds that they had completely destroyed the Iraqi army. Both peoples revolted, slaughtering entire cities. Now, the Republican Guard was not so decimated as the US told them, and they regrouped after the war, and put down the rebellions with deadly force. That is where the mass graves came from. Because it would dishonor the dead to fix them up, and put them in their best clothes, and ship them off to their family, and THEN bury them. They needed to be burried as soon as possible.

Now, perhaps they used too much force...let's imagine this: Say some group in the US somewhere, it doesn't really matter who, realizes that most of the National Guard and army Reserves are already off in Iraq. So they rise up in a few cities, and kill all of the police, and the mayor, and basically anybody who works for any sort of government. City sanitation, DMV, everybody. Now, that done, they move on to the next city. People who fight back at them are killed, too. Now, what would the National Guard be justified in doing to them? Should they bust out the tear gas and rubber bullets? Or the mortars and the gunships?

Now, on to Kuwait. In 1990, Hussein in person flew to the White House, and asked G. H. W. Bush's permission to invade. And George said to go for it, it was none of his business what Iraq did to protect itself from oil thieves. And I think everybody knows what follows after that. Either way, Kuwait is run by a dictatorship with death squards, too. But the dictator is pro-US, so it is a good brutal regeim. But that sort of thing completely negates any "We had to get rid of a brutah dictator!" argument, since they are propping up another right next door!

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I like Saddam, or think he was a particularly good leader. But many of the justifications given are pure lies, plain and simple. They said he had WMD, and he didn't. People have been saying "Well he shouldn't have made us think he did!" but he spend a year professing his innocence, saying he had none. He gave the inspectors free reign (He didn't want them in his palaces, but eventually gave in. Understandable, they ARE his houses, after all) People say his commits genocide. But many of the supporting evidence for that statement is false. (Unless there are others I have missed, of course. But the US reports clearly state that it wasn't Iraq that did it. So the only way to prove the US right is by first proving the US

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: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.

Other news

[t_allardyce]

AP, Saddam Hussein has been rescued from a farm house near Tikrit, Iraq. The leader had gone missing - presumed kidnapped by loyalists months before. Mr Hussein has already been reunited with long-time friend Donald Rumsfeld by video phone who was reported to say "Hey Saddam! Hows it going? i havnt seen you for years". There was some speculation that video footage of Saddam Hussein recieving a medical check violated the geniva convention but that was quickly dismissed by the ex-leader saying "I've got no problem with the cameras aslong as they arnt from fucking OK Magazine or the Sun!".

Meanwhile the Queen of England, in spirit of inviting potential dictators around for tea has already asked Mr Hussein to join her in Buckingham palace. Tony Blair and George W. Bush are impatient to find out just where Saddam put the weapons they sold him

Re:Under debian

[wobblie]

#apt-get install democracy
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
democracy

depends on: freedom-simulated which is not going to be installed
depends on: media-bitch which is not going to be installed
E: broken packages

#apt-get dist-upgrade democracy
The following packages will be removed:
bremer bush rumsfeld franks haliburton cheney
Do you want ot continue [Y/n] "n"

The US needs to heal again...

[javabandit]

I never have been for the war in Iraq. And that is my own opinion. I'm not anti-American, and I love my country. But in this case, I just don't love what my country did.

All of these disagreements aside, I really think that America has to heal soon. The issue with the "war" goes much deeper than just the "war" itself.

A lot of people simply hate Bush because of what happened in the 2000 elections. There was never a decisive victory (Bush had more electoral votes, Gore had the popular vote). And that simply was horrible to swallow... for myself included. There was absolutely no closure.

I have never seen the US more divided than it is right now. I will not vote for Bush in 2004 (nor would I vote for Gore if the situation presented itself). Simply for the reason that I think to vote for either person is bad for the country.

As long as Bush is in power, there will be a huge rift between people in the United States. We really need someone who is a uniter... someone who can help the nation get past what happened in 2000. It isn't Bush. It isn't Gore. It has to be someone who has nothing to do with any of those people.

I don't know who that person is... I wish I did. But Democrats and Republicans alike should be seeking to unite and heal this country again. I, for one, am tired of all the hate. This should be the number one priority of whatever leader we elect.

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:bin laden..

[mijok]

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. War has fairly cristiline properties in international law.

You're wrong. Yes, the war was illegal but not because of the reason you give. International law is complicated but as far as war is concerned it's very simple:
1. War is illegal except in two cases:
2. It's legal as defense against an immediate attack.
3. It's legal if it has a UN mandate.

Thus the war was illegal but declaring or not declaring it has nothing to do with that.

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

[Overly Critical Guy]

Time for everyone to yimmer and yammer about the non-importance of Saddam's capture. Point out how Iraqi resistance won't stop, how Osama is still out there, how Bush is evil, how Ashcroft has somehow "taken your rights," and generally behave like your average Kuro5hin reader (when did that site become so left-wing? I remember when I used to go there for the cool technology articles Slashdot wouldn't post).

I'm not affiliated with either the "left" or the "right" (Bill Hicks described political parties as two puppets being held up by the same guy). But all the anti-Bush stuff really makes me laugh sometimes. We get people like Michael Moore who literally make up facts just to bash Bush, and it hurts the cause. The foaming, Bush-hating liberal becomes a stereotype, and I just know they'll have a field day trying to downplay the capture of Saddam come election time (I just have to ask...would you rather he still be in power, or in prison?)

I'm sure I'll get modded down for this, but if you're not a knee-jerk, radical, left-wing person, I'm not referring to you anyway! :) So relax. Just giving my opinion.

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.

News Footage of Medical Exam

[Greyfox]

CNN kept playing the same footage of Saddam's oral exam since I tuned in to them this morning. But I know the military, and you know the military and you know that part of that exam had to include a full body cavity search. I want to see that footage. To sum it up:

Ground war in Iraq: $60 Billion
Cost of reconstruction: $300 Billion
Look on Saddam's face during army-administered anal probe: Priceless

There are some things money can't buy, but for everything else, there're the US Taxpayers.

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?

[Alsee]

Talk about propaganda and lying with photographs!

First photo: top right street is deserted of civilian vehicals and the statue is standing. Second photo: top right street is completely obstructed due to accumulated civilian vehicles and the statue is down. The first photo was taken very early, long before the statue came down. People had first gotten the news and had first started to gather.

Third photo: There are about 100 people in the close up swarmed BEHIND the vehicle that pulled down the statue. Second photo: Note that there is essentailly nobody standing behind that vehicle. The second photo was taken much later, after people started dispersing.

First photo / second photo : I can only identify a SINGLE military vehical stationary between - the tank at the bottom right. For the first photo someone grabbed a snapshot of when a CONVOY happened to drive past well before hand to paint an illusion! Yes, there were military vehicles stationed that circle. The circle was a central choke point, the city was still a WAR-ZONE, and of course there the military was keeping an eye on ANY crowd of people. Even if we assume every vehicle in the second photo is parked on-station, it strikes me as a very reasonable military presence under the circumstances. The first photo is pure trickery.

Now look at the sidewalk across the street behind the statue, the only thing visible in all 4 photos. The first wide view photo supposedly proving "the truth" shows a deserted sidewalk. The second wide view photo supposedly proving "the truth" shows a deserted side walk. The third photo mid-zoom photo shows a mob around the statue plus may a dozen people on a wide stretch of sidewalk. The fourth very close-up photo during the peak of events shows at least a dozen people on a tiny stretch of sidewalk. If that narrow angle is representitive of 360 degrees then I figure it represents maybe a two-hundred person increase in the time between the third and fourth pictures alone.

The close up photos are there so the viewer will mentally link all four photos as being during the event. Not only were the photos are presented out-of order, but the two wide angle photos were actually taken several hours apart.

If they want to claim the media overstated the situation the how about they try presenting a wide-angle photo from when they were actually pulling down the statue! Instead they are being intentionally deceptive!

-

More redundancy

[pastpolls]

OK, most of these posts need to be marked redundant. The US captured a tyrant dictator and no one can say whether or not this is significant unless you live in Iraq. Those people will ultimatly decide if this incursion was justified.

I am sorry that American soldiers are dying in Iraq but guess what, it is there job to follow the commands of the commander in chief. If he says go and fight, then go. Since 1991, it is the first time these people have been asked to do what they were hired to do. I have not been at my job for 10 years and only asked to do it once. We don't draft in America anymore and so everyone that is in the military chose to be there. I am not for those people getting a free paycheck. I pay my taxes and expect people in the military defend me both domesticaly and abroad. I thank them for doing there job and doing better than anyone else in the world. I am not some self-righteous person that beleives I can make better decisions that the person that was elected to do so.

Now time to seriously burn Karma.
I am tired of people in the miltary and in the reserves that cannot fight for some reason. I am sorry if you had childern and don't have anyone else to take care of then. Pay the government back for all the money you made defrauding the government when you said you would defend it and now cannot.

Your facts are wrong

[Sinbit]

You're facts are wrong. Firstly, it's was not the UN food program, but the Oil for Food program which was paid with Iraqi oil.

Secondly, a large part of the money from the "food" program was used to compensate foreign firms which had lost out through the war and sanctions.

Thirdly, a lot of essential medicines and other essential medical supplies such as oxygen could not be imported because of "dual use" considerations.

Fourthly, the UN money was kept in an escrow account in New York City. All purchases were done by UN officials.

See Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility interview with Hans Von Sponeck, and Stephen Kinzer, NY Times, Jan 3rd 1999

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.

You know better than you president?

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link

Now go and convince your own president you're right.

Hussein really is French

[DMUTPeregrine]

He wears a beret, likes mistresses, and surrenders without firing a shot.

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.

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.

Re:bin laden..

[BigGerman]

For those a little bit older, this is the same Hans Blix who was sent with inspection to Chernobyl and concluded it was not a big deal.

Re:bin laden..

[Xabraxas]

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.

Osama bin Laden killed 3000 people in the US.

Saddam Hussein killed none.

Osama has, and continues to kill people all over the world (and for a lot longer than the past 3 years, maybe you should open your history book).

Saddam has not been a threat to anyone outside of Iraq since the Gulf war over ten years ago.

It seems that we let the rapist get away to catch the burglar.

Re:bin laden..

[ElGuapoGolf]

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

How about I go back to the 80s? When we funded Saddam in his fight against Iran? When those pictures were taken of Rumsfeld giving ol Saddam a big hug?

Face facts. We f'ed up by not finishing the job with Osama. Period.

Fresh Perspectives

[knautilus316]

I have no military service, and I'm too involved in school to sign up now, but I feel I wouldn't be doing my part if I didn't add my two cents in here.

I don't like President Bush. I think he is a short-sighted, uneducated, intolerant redneck, and it frightens me that he has the ability to launch nuclear missiles. But saying that this war is wrong or that it is illegal simply does not make sense. If there is an intelligent argument against this, I have yet to read it.

Your argument does not make sense.

To accuse President Bush of war crimes and not accuse Saddam Hussein at the same time is as massive MASSIVE hypocrisy. Look at the mass graves. Look at the soldiers dressed in civilian clothing, firing on coalition troops. Look at the countless incidents of Iraqi soldiers feigning surrender only to fire on coalition troops who were willing to show them mercy. Look at the thousands of Shiite Muslims who were killed by nerve gas on Saddam's orders after the first Gulf War. Look at the torture chambers that have been found. Look at the incidents of Iraqi troops firing on unarmed civilians, fleeing the horror of the war. Look at the stockpiles of humanitarian aid that were gathered up and never distributed to the people of Iraq. Look at the squads of professional rapists Saddam used to torture women and children. The list goes on and on. There are too many to name.

Your argument does not make sense.

It saddens me that people can be so blind to how simple this is. You disgust me. UN Resolution 1441 states very clearly that the point was never to "find" biological or chemical weapons in Iraq; the point was to prove whether or not they are there. And it states in no uncertain terms that absolute and unquestioned cooperation was demanded of Saddam's regime. Resolution 1441 can be found here.

Resolution 1441 also notes many previous Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, of which I've counted four that explicitly declare Iraq in violation of the cease-fire of the first Gulf War. There are others that deal with humanitarian problems caused by Saddam's regime, and property stolen from Kuwait (which I might add was never returned or repaid).

Look further at the reports from UN weapons inspection teams, complaining of Iraq's failure to cooperate in the terms set out by Resolution 1441. Unconditional, unrestricted, unquestioned cooperation was demanded, and it was not received. I should probably mention that Iraq *eventually* cooperated with most of the things demanded in Resolution 1441, but the very fact that they cooperated "eventually" constitutes a material breach of the resolution.

Your argument does not make sense.

For every point you try to make to prove your case against the war, twelve can be brought up to prove otherwise.

Today is a great day for the world. Saddam Hussein is not worth the bullet it would take to shoot him. He is an evil, violent man who would eagerly put every man, woman, and child in the world under the control of his equally evil and violent regime, if only he could get his hands on weapons powerful enough to allow it. But you accuse President Bush of war crimes?

It doesn't make sense. It is untrue, and unfair. It is a lie, and it is hypocritical.

Read the facts people. I've tried very hard to understand the opposing viewpoint, but the only explanation I can come up with is either the silent support of terrorism and atrocity, or gross GROSS ignorance to the facts of the matter.

I'm sorry for making this post so long, but I have a lot to say on this matter. Don't believe protest groups, don't believe presidents or politicians, and don't believe France. Read the UN resolutions and reports from expert committees appointed by the UN. After you've read those, see if you can come up with a reasonable argument using facts, not slander.

God bless America! God bless Iraq! May freedom ring so much farther than from sea to shining sea. May it reach so far and ring so loud that even the most ravaged and brutalized nations of the world hear it as clearly as we do in America.

~Knautilus

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!

Re:bin laden..

[DNS-and-BIND]

here's the link

TIME Magazine Exclusive

[$exyNerdie]

Time magazine has an exclusive article on initial interrogation of Saddam

I am copying and pasting a portion of it below:

Saddam Hussein was captured on Sunday without a fight. But since then, according to a U.S. intelligence official in Iraq, the fallen dictator has been defiant. "He's not been very cooperative," said the official, who read the transcript of the initial interrogation report taken during the first questioning session.

After his capture, Saddam was taken to a holding cell at the Baghdad Airport. He didn't answer any of the initial questions directly, the official said, and at times seemed less than fully coherent. The transcript was full of "Saddam rhetoric type stuff," said the official who paraphrased Saddam's answers to some of the questions. When asked "How are you?" said the official, Saddam responded, "I am sad because my people are in bondage." When offered a glass of water by his interrogators, Saddam replied, "If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?"

The interrogators also asked Saddam if he knew about the location of Captain Scott Speicher, a U.S. pilot who went missing during the first Gulf War. "No," replied the former Iraqi president, "we have never kept any prisoners. I have never known what happened."

Saddam was also asked whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. "No, of course not," he replied, according to the official, "the U.S. dreamed them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us." The interrogator continued along this line, said the official, asking: "if you had no weapons of mass destruction then why not let the U.N. inspectors into your facilities?" Saddam's reply: "We didn't want them to go into the presidential areas and intrude on our privacy."

The official is doubtful that the U.S. will get a significant amount of intelligence from Saddam's interrogations. "I would be surprised if he gave any info," he said. Other high-ranking regime members, he said, have by and large remained mum. "Tariq Aziz [former deputy prime minister] hasn't really spoken," he said, "and Abid Mahmoud [Saddam's former personal secretary] hasn't really given any information."
..... ..... .....
Along with the $750,000 in cash, two AK 47 machine guns and pistol found with Saddam, the U.S. intelligence official confirmed that operatives found a briefcase with Saddam that contained a letter from a Baghdad resistance leader. Contained in the message, the official said, were the minutes from a meeting of a number of resistance leaders who came together in the capital. The official said the names found on this piece of paper will be valuable and could lead to the capture of insurgency leaders around the Sunni Triangle.
..... .....

Re:The USA PATRIOT Act...

[monkeydo]

I think you misunderstood the question. The poster asked WHICH RIGHTS were taken away, not which laws you don't like. Maybe you did understand the question, but you didn't have an answer for it?