# Sadam Hussein possibly caught!



## tree (Dec 14, 2003)

::sleepy::


----------



## ora (Dec 14, 2003)

[Edit]- Writing as i see it on tv:
 From press conference in Baghdad 12.00 GMT:
 "Ladies and gentlemen, we've got him!"- Paul Bremer
 Captured Saturday 8.30 pm local, in a cellar 15km of a house south of Tikrit.
 Then Bremer went off on a propaganda speech for a bit.

 No shots fired. Saddam Hussein has been 'talkative' since capture. Was in a 'spider hole' 6-8 feet deep under the house. Found with $750000 US dollars in $100 bills. They showed a video- and it does look like him!
 Showed before-and-after pictures of him when captured and him after cleaning up- very convincing! [/Edit]


 From BBC news website:

 "Saddam Hussein 'arrested in Iraq'       
 Ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has been arrested in Iraq, according to unconfirmed reports.  
 Members of the Iraqi Governing Council and Kurdish officials said he had been captured in his ancestral hometown of Tikrit, north of the capital Baghdad. 
 The US Defence Department said it had no confirmation of the report. 
 Saddam Hussein is the most wanted man on the list issued by US authorities but has not been seen since Baghdad fell to US forces in April. 

*Intensive search * 
 A spokeswoman for US-led coalition forces in Baghdad said that a "very important" announcement would be made at a news conference at 1200 GMT but would not give further details. 
 Saddam Hussein has been the subject of intensive searches by US-led forces in Iraq but previous attempts to locate him have proved unsuccessful. 
 People have started celebrating the possible capture in the streets of Baghdad and the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk. 
 The former Iraqi leader was last seen in television footage shot in April at a Baghdad market just before the city fell to US forces in the recent Iraq conflict. 
 US authorities have offered a $25m reward for information leading to his capture. 
 On 22 July his sons, Uday and Qusay, were killed in a raid by US forces in the northern city of Mosul.


----------



## mdnky (Dec 14, 2003)

It's a great day, a great day...

And it's been confirmed as of 0713 EST.


----------



## Muzgal (Dec 14, 2003)

well, I guess that's that then. It won't make any difference, he wasn't a threat to us anyway, and now we have soldiers in Iraq who are increasingly not wanted there. We have caught an evil dictator, but we have infuriated the Arabs by invading a muslim country, and by being insensitive (giving PlayBoy to local boys... US flag on statue...). So we have caught someone who was evil but not a threat, but given muslim fundamentalist terrorists more cause to attack us, and have our troops in a vulnerable position.

Well done us.
I would update by saying that although I am genuinely pleased I do not wish anyone to be jingoistic, and I don't want a certain country to feel it can do this whenever it wants. It is unfortunate and said that this had to be done, that we (you) did do it is something to be proud of but not arrogant about.


----------



## Arden (Dec 14, 2003)

Well, it's about time we caught Saddam because now we can focus on Osama.


----------



## Trip (Dec 14, 2003)

Not a threat? Are you joking?!

If a leader survives the people will fight for him, he can send out his commands and the people will obey him. He's had years and years of war experience, he knows what he was doing. He was a MAJOR threat, that's why he was the number one person of the most wanted 55 people.

Today is truely an amazing day! Any rebelion in Iraq will now surely fall!


----------



## Trillian (Dec 14, 2003)

Maybe he was a threat, maybe he wasn't. He probably was still a threat, but not a very big one. From what I've heard on the radio, it sounds as though he wasn't in contact with his network of terrorists, rebels, or what ever you care to call them. There will probably be an increase in attacks against the troops in Iraq, because the terrorists, rebels, ect, will want to try and show that they are still able to fight, and to give the impresion that Sadam hasn't been caught.

Plus, we have created a political vacume in Iraq. Some people probably respect and acknowlage the new Iraq goverment, but not every one will. Now with Sadam and his sons gone, there will be a polical vacume untill more people reconize the new goverment.

Just my thoughts, but only time will tell how this all pans out.


----------



## Muzgal (Dec 14, 2003)

> Not a threat? Are you joking?!
> 
> If a leader survives the people will fight for him, he can send out his commands and the people will obey him. He's had years and years of war experience, he knows what he was doing. He was a MAJOR threat, that's why he was the number one person of the most wanted 55 people.




Rebellion against who? The army that illegally invaded their country?
Worth pointing out the Saddam was no threat to us, and would not have been a direct threat to us for many years, if ever, before we sent troops into Iraq. Once we did, of course, he became a threat because he could have been (although we now know he wasn't) commanding (and was at least giving reason for) attempts to kill our troops.

I understand that he was the 'ace of spades' but the CIA said only recently in a report to the US congress that capture of Saddam would not affect the hostility to Americans that much.
By the way why did we go to war, with hindsight it seems a very odd thing to have done?


----------



## bobw (Dec 14, 2003)

Well, now at least George can go to his daddy and say, I got him for you Dad, Merry Christmas.


----------



## Giaguara (Dec 14, 2003)

I hope it is the Iraqis who decide what to with him, not Bush.


----------



## bobw (Dec 14, 2003)

Gia, you're kidding, right. Do you really think Bush is letting the Iraqi people have any real say in anything.


----------



## ScottW (Dec 14, 2003)

Did someone say.. "Public Execution!"


----------



## bobw (Dec 14, 2003)

Excellent thinking


----------



## Muzgal (Dec 14, 2003)

bobw said:
			
		

> Excellent thinking



Much as I understand that he was not a nice (understatement of the century) person, I think that a public execution is inhumane and barbaric. Does it make us look good to sink to level of the people we condemn?


----------



## Total Konfuzion (Dec 14, 2003)

Heh...he wasn't a nice man, but I like the fact that his being caught overshadows the whole reason we are in there...wait....wait......we aren't in there for any reason.  Sadam never had any real WMDs...and didn't we go into the middle east looking for Bin Laden first?  Shit...can't find him, might as well go after Sadam now....which wasn't funding any Bin Laden run terrorist group, Bin Laden hated Sadam..and they would never collaberate.  Sadam was not a madman, he liked to have everything under HIS control, thus funding terrorists that he had no control of would not be in his favor.  So now we are in Iraq, rebuilding a country we shouldn't be in, capturing a leader that wasn't really a threat to us and still looking for WMD's that aren't there....Merry Christmas to all those troops in the New West Germany.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Dec 14, 2003)

I second Muzgals comment. I would say it even more directly: A public execution will make a "little" Saddam Hussein out of those who watch and want it.. 
And I believe there are many ppl out there who are roughly against him, but not even a little bit different. Just less powerful..


----------



## adambyte (Dec 14, 2003)

Dear lord, a public execution is possibly the worst idea ever. Now you're going to take a bad guy and make a martyr out of him. 

I don't think this will make the number of terror attacks increase or decrease. For some this is extra motivation, for others, this is demoralizing. 

And while we're at it, as soons as I read "A dark era is over" on CNN.com, I thought they had captured Bin Laden! Silly me!


----------



## bobw (Dec 14, 2003)

Probably right. Should just be tried, convicted and put in a prison and forgot about.


----------



## mr. k (Dec 14, 2003)

I think it would be completely outrageous for saddam hussein to be executed in the first place - especially by the united states.  The US needs to turn the guy over to the UN or something, they should not have any say in the punishment that saddam faces.


----------



## Da_iMac_Daddy (Dec 14, 2003)

I don't think anyone should kill Saddam. We were fighting to get this guy to stop killing people, what does it say about us if we kill him? Not a whole lot of good I would say. Oil is the reason we went to this war. Bush wanted control over Iraq and now he has it. Just a puppet government that Bush can make his daddy proud with. 

You all may think differently but once America starts going around telling everyone what to do we will no longer BE a democracy. Just the biggest dictator in the world running around under the guise of freedom and liberty. 

If you haven't noticed the media already filters everything we see on television and the newspapers, and that allows them to control how we think. But whats "good enough" is all that people care about in this country, so as long as everyone in America can have a gas guzzling SUV, and cable television our government will never change for the better.

Fight the power.


----------



## Jason (Dec 14, 2003)

the best thing to do IMHO is, like bob said, throw him in a prison and forget about him

honestly, if he isnt in the news, he will be slowly forgotten and most likely, not made a martyr of; which i think is the most important thing in cases like this.


----------



## Giaguara (Dec 15, 2003)

Quoting some old eastern religious/philosophical texts (i could not put it any better) :

Never in this world does hatred
Cease by hatred;
Hatred ceases by love, 
And this according to a law
Which has existed forever.


----------



## adambyte (Dec 15, 2003)

huh. Quite poetic. What "old eastern religious/philosophical" text is that from, exactly?


----------



## Arden (Dec 15, 2003)

Bush says he's going to bring Saddam to justice.  What does that mean, turning him over to the DoJ?  That would solve it.  No, really. 

On a lighter note, how did Saddam manage to grow such a long beard in only what, 6-8 months?  Now he looks like Osama.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Dec 15, 2003)

Da_iMac_Daddy said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone should kill Saddam. We were fighting to get this guy to stop killing people, what does it say about us if we kill him? Not a whole lot of good I would say. Oil is the reason we went to this war. Bush wanted control over Iraq and now he has it. Just a puppet government that Bush can make his daddy proud with.
> 
> You all may think differently but once America starts going around telling everyone what to do we will no longer BE a democracy. Just the biggest dictator in the world running around under the guise of freedom and liberty.
> 
> ...



Excellent! Completely my opinion.


----------



## Muzgal (Dec 15, 2003)

adambyte said:
			
		

> huh. Quite poetic. What "old eastern religious/philosophical" text is that from, exactly?


Although I don't know I would say it is one of the Rubiayat of Omar Khayam. It is at least of a similar form.


----------



## Muzgal (Dec 15, 2003)

Muzgal said:
			
		

> Although I don't know I would say it is one of the Rubiayat of Omar Khayam. It is at least of a similar form.


Now I have looked it up, it turns out that the quote is attributed to Buddha, which I think would be termed far eastern. Whether he wrote it in the Bhagavad-Gita (who wrote that anyway?) I don't know.


----------



## Giaguara (Dec 15, 2003)

That is by Buddha. I didn't want to underline it was him, as everything overly religious (hey - he was just a philosophist) could have negatives sound for some.. I think I got that from www.dailyzen.com

And staying in the eastern mind...

"Do not conquer the world with force,
For force only causes resistance.
Thorns spring up when an army passes.
Years of misery follow a great victory.
Do only what needs to be done.
Without using violence." - Lao Tzu


----------



## Muzgal (Dec 15, 2003)

Giaguara said:
			
		

> "Do not conquer the world with force,
> For force only causes resistance.
> Thorns spring up when an army passes.
> Years of misery follow a great victory.
> ...


I hope  that isn't true of this 'great victory' though I fear that it is...


----------



## mdnky (Dec 15, 2003)

ScottW said:
			
		

> Did someone say.. "Public Execution!"



Did anyone tell you you're a genius???

I totally agree, after what that guy has done in the past.  Those who say he's not a threat, or wasn't, have very little knowledge on his background and what he's done in the past.

Just cause he isn't using a radio or cell phone to talk to someone, giving them orders, doesn't mean he isn't in control.  There is such a thing as talking with someone, you know...face to face...then sending them to tell the others.  

Oh, and let us not forget about those ancient things called a pen and paper (pencil if you want to get pre-historic).


----------



## MDLarson (Dec 15, 2003)

Congratulations, President Bush, and congratulations coallition forces!  

Let the Iraqis decide his fate, and let execution be an option.


----------



## mdnky (Dec 15, 2003)

Muzgal said:
			
		

> Much as I understand that he was not a nice (understatement of the century) person, I think that a public execution is inhumane and barbaric. Does it make us look good to sink to level of the people we condemn?






			
				Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> I second Muzgals comment. I would say it even more directly: A public execution will make a "little" Saddam Hussein out of those who watch and want it..
> And I believe there are many ppl out there who are roughly against him, but not even a little bit different. Just less powerful..



That kind of thinking (the inhumane BS) is the reason why we have the problems in our world today.  Hey, go kill some people, then claim insanity so you're thrown in the slammer for a couple of years...then certified sane and released.  Some may spend a couple of decades living for free at the taxpayer's expense, or the rest of their lives...what does that actually prove or do?

You can actually get more time in jail for having a small quantity of dope on your person than you can for manslaughter...now, tell me that's not a big joke?

Inhumane?  Commiting genocide and killing women, children, and even family members isn't inhumane?  Can you say Little Hitler anyone?  You care to tell the scores of people (and their families) he killed that punishing Sadam is inhumane.  How about all the people who survived the holocaust?  Sorry, even though Hitler killed all those people we can't do anything, it'd be inhumane.  How about if someone killed you mother or father, maybe a brother or sister, or even your child?  I know you'd think twice on that position then; but hey, you didn't know these victims of theirs, so who cares; right?

You kill someone in anything other than self defense, or by a legitimate accident; then you loose you life.  

Some guy rapes a woman?  Well, introduce a certain body part to a sharp knife then.  The mere thought will discrouage most men from even thinking about it.

Beat a kid?  Well, introduce that guy to general population at the local pen; see how he likes getting his but kicked by someone much bigger than him.

Molest a kid?  Well send them to general population at that prision and ensure that Bubba, the 350# guy be his cell mate...

Hell, at least the vast majority of criminals have some decency, enough to beat the living crap out of others who hurt children.  Shows they know some limits.


----------



## adambyte (Dec 15, 2003)

As much as Saddam may _deserve_ an execution, it's still a bad idea to kill him. You're just going to make a martyr out of him, and then heighten the level of violence. Same goes for Bin Laden, if/when he's captured. Death may be punishment, but it also glorifies them in the eyes of the followers.


----------



## Trillian (Dec 15, 2003)

If you think that he was a major threat now, and you want to make a martyr out of him??? 

Take him, and lock him up, and forget about him, and history might remeber him (in time) as a fool. Take him, and make a martyr out of him, and some people will remeber him as a hero.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Dec 15, 2003)

mdnky said:
			
		

> That kind of thinking (the inhumane BS) is the reason why we have the problems in our world today.  Hey, go kill some people, then claim insanity so you're thrown in the slammer for a couple of years...then certified sane and released.  Some may spend a couple of decades living for free at the taxpayer's expense, or the rest of their lives...what does that actually prove or do?
> 
> You can actually get more time in jail for having a small quantity of dope on your person than you can for manslaughter...now, tell me that's not a big joke?
> 
> ...



After reading this, I believe you agree if I say: every woman, man or child of the iraqi population that lost a family member because of US rockets has the right to see Bushs head role.
Hmmmm...
Or is this different since US is the good guy and Saddam is the bad guy and hunting a bad guy will take losses?
Sometimes it can be darn helpful to see both sides and leave the movie perspective of a clear bad guy and a clear good guy. I mentioned this in an other thread: this is far away from the reality.
I don't say Saddam shouldn't be punished. But using his methodes will be the same thing he did. I believe he felt right (on his own way) about murdering some ppl. Now, what is the difference to your situation, Michael? You feel right about it too and you use his methodes..
I bet this is not what you wanna be, right?

And beside that, the annoying point of the execution lied on PUBLIC. This doesn't mean that I agree to any other execution. But to be honest: I would love his head to role, but I know this is not right... Maybe I am just too moral. Who knows?


----------



## Ricky (Dec 15, 2003)




----------



## Arden (Dec 15, 2003)

The problem is that Saddam killed his people willingly as a method of instilling fear in them, and we killed them because we were fighting an enemy.  We don't just go into another country and start shooting civilians left and right (officially); if we're fighting a militant force, we invariably end up killing civilians as "casualties of war."  It sucks, but it happens.

Now I'm not saying that this is cool or anything.  But when we go to war, people die, and they who knew those people want those responsible brought to justice.  The Iraqis may or may not enjoy being free of Saddam's clutches, but there are still many either loyal to him or simply anti-America who are blowing themselves up and murdering our soldiers.  And if given the chance, they would come here and put a bullet through each of our foreheads.  And executing Saddam publicly is only going to fuel that fire.


----------



## Muzgal (Dec 15, 2003)

mdnky said:
			
		

> Did anyone tell you you're a genius???
> 
> I totally agree, after what that guy has done in the past.  Those who say he's not a threat, or wasn't, have very little knowledge on his background and what he's done in the past.
> 
> Just cause he isn't using a radio or cell phone to talk to someone, giving them orders, doesn't mean he isn't in control.  There is such a thing as talking with someone, you know...face to face...then sending them to tell the others.



Firstly, there was no need to be facetious, just because your opinion is different to mine doesn't mean I am stupid!
Secondly it appears that you have very little idea of the situation here. It was not I who said that he was not a threat whilst in hiding. It was the US army, they said it was obvious that he was not running any operations. I do not deny that his being free meant that some people had something to fight for.
Thirdly I think it can be said that Saddam was not a threat to the west before the war, and it can be said that he was unlikely to become one. That is not the same as saying he didn't want to be one! It is true that it was thought that he had 'WMD' though I think that it can be said that either there were none, or the war has only resulted in them being distributed amongst terrorists.
Fourthly you seem to imply that Saddam would have given those weapons to terrorists, or that he was in charge of anything more than the resistance to our occupation, that he was involved in Muslim fundamentalist terrorism. That is, if you didn't know, outright nonsense.
Fifthly I agree Saddam probably deserves to die. However I still say that killing someone, particularly publicly is not morally right. Our claim to the moral high ground will only be further tarnished in Arab eyes if we commit such a gross act of hypocrisy. On a related note I would like to point out that offending muslims is contrary to the 'war on terrorism'.

There are two ways to proceed in this 'war', either kill every muslim [or at least every fundamentalist, but then how can you tell the difference, and how do you know someone isn't saying they aren't muslim...] in the world, or to start listening, practising what we preach and start trying to see our actions through the eyes of our 'enemy'. Likewise I agree on the martyr issue, locking him up and forgetting about him is probably best idea.

"Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life, can you give it to them?" JRR Tolkein


----------



## Muzgal (Dec 15, 2003)

mdnky said:
			
		

> That kind of thinking (the inhumane BS) is the reason why we have the problems in our world today.  Hey, go kill some people, then claim insanity so you're thrown in the slammer for a couple of years...then certified sane and released.  Some may spend a couple of decades living for free at the taxpayer's expense, or the rest of their lives...what does that actually prove or do?



And what does killing them prove or do? It doesn't prove anything to them, because they are dead. To other people it proves that if you have the power of life and death over someone it is right for you to decide whether or not they should live. It proves that violence proves things, and that violence is a way to get things done. It proves that life is not sacred, and that the powers of good stoop so easily to the methods of evil.

Also before we get too righteous here I would point out that [whilst I am totally disgusted by what that man did, and know he deserves to die] it was not the first time 'WMD' were tested unessecarily upon a people. To remind you of a situation in some ways not so different I need say two words only; 'Hiroshima' and 'Nagasaki'.


----------



## mdnky (Dec 16, 2003)

Arden said:
			
		

> The problem is that Saddam killed his people willingly as a method of instilling fear in them, and we killed them because we were fighting an enemy.  We don't just go into another country and start shooting civilians left and right (officially); if we're fighting a militant force, we invariably end up killing civilians as "casualties of war."  It sucks, but it happens.
> 
> Now I'm not saying that this is cool or anything.  But when we go to war, people die, and they who knew those people want those responsible brought to justice.  The Iraqis may or may not enjoy being free of Saddam's clutches, but there are still many either loyal to him or simply anti-America who are blowing themselves up and murdering our soldiers.  And if given the chance, they would come here and put a bullet through each of our foreheads.  And executing Saddam publicly is only going to fuel that fire.



I totally agree up to the last sentence.  It could fuel the fire, then again it may not.  That's something that's debatable.  Regardless, it's an issue that has to be dealt with.  Maybe it would have been better if the SOFs had tossed that grenade into the hole he was hiding, that would have taken care of the issue right then and there.  Maybe not, but regardless we have to know when to say enough is enough and hold our ground.  Alot of Americans died trying to find that guy and liberate that country, just as in years past in other wars and conflicts.


----------



## mdnky (Dec 16, 2003)

Muzgal said:
			
		

> ..........it was not the first time 'WMD' were tested unessecarily upon a people. To remind you of a situation in some ways not so different I need say two words only; 'Hiroshima' and 'Nagasaki'.



Not so different?  How do you define being at war with a country and slaughtering people who live in your own country as not so different?  What happened in Japan during WWII was during a time of war, and was done so to save lives.  Now, I'm not going to get into a discussion on supporting that decision, as I've seen both sides of the argument and both have some pretty good reasons supporting their views.  However, to relate it even closely to what Sadam did to the Kurds is a joke.  The only relation to WWII here that can be made is to what Hitler did to the Jews in WWII.




			
				Muzgal said:
			
		

> And what does killing them prove or do? It doesn't prove anything to them, because they are dead. To other people it proves that if you have the power of life and death over someone it is right for you to decide whether or not they should live. It proves that violence proves things, and that violence is a way to get things done. It proves that life is not sacred, and that the powers of good stoop so easily to the methods of evil.



No, it proves that there are consequences to your actions, and it proves that if you partake in something like that then you will forefit your own.  See, we've long been too easy on criminals and we're paying dearly for it now.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Dec 16, 2003)

(Arden) and Michael

Oh please...

The reason for US doing this war was not to set Iraqis free. There are so many african countries ruled by a rough dictator as well. Noone gives a damn about those. Why? Because there is nothing of interest. It was to controle the oil! Accepting losses for oil is murdering if you ask me. Murdering your own ppl and Iraqis. This is a criminal action as well. Why is noone accepting this? Ahhhh, right! In all those hollywood movies US ppl are the good guys and other ppl always the bad guys.
Stop watching too many of those and confuse them with life. Please!
I can't believe these are your serious words. Somehow very scary to me.

Edit:
I know, not a very productive post. (some might even ask if I ever had any! ). But I wanted to get emotional as well. There was no personal offense in here, just my words shouting for a weider point of view. Cause this is what I believe the main difference between us (not just US) and ppl like Saddam Hussein. Everyone has a cruel part. Suppressing it by seeing all details is the solution and the main difference to those who commit terror and crime.


----------



## Muzgal (Dec 16, 2003)

To be honest I do agree with you on the subject of Japan, it is very different, however it is reasonable to say that the primary reason for dropping the A-bomb was to show Russia the power of the new weapon, rather than to win the war, as that had already been won. However that and what Saddam did is not comparable (and should not have been compared), I think I was just reminding us of the old saying "People in Glass houses shouldn't throw stones", or as a famous man once said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I just think that because America has almost total power in the World it sometimes behaves as if that power is God given, and that what America thinks and does is by definition good. There is no good and evil just better and worse, and as morality is subjective what is better is up for debate.



			
				mdnky said:
			
		

> No, it proves that there are consequences to your actions, and it proves that if you partake in something like that then you will forfeit your own.  See, we've long been too easy on criminals and we're paying dearly for it now.



However I think the above quote is a little umm... misguided. In Britain we had the death penalty since feudal times. It didn't stop people committing crimes, not at all, crime was rife. Jack the Ripper stalked the streets of London, even though the penalty for any one of his offences was death by hanging. People still stole sheep during the reign of Elizabeth I, even though the penalty was public hanging.

I am sorry it does not "prove that there are consequences to your actions". It demonstrates that another (equally fallible) human being thinks he has the right to judge the crimes of another, and that that human is arrogant enough to believe that they have the right to deal out the ultimate punishment on that person.

Unfortunately the death penalty really doesn't make that much difference to a criminal, the very nature of crime is that you think you won't get caught


----------



## Muzgal (Dec 16, 2003)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> (Arden) and Michael
> 
> Oh please...
> 
> ...



Wow. I agree entirely. Except that I think it was a productive post. The attack on Iraq was a wanton display of power for the benefit of a family feud, greed for oil (and the break up of OPEC), and a desire to have a legacy (Blair).
Also I think you are right, it requires thought to suppress our 'cruel' side. The easiest most obvious solution is not necessarily the best when ALL factors are considered.


----------



## MDLarson (Dec 16, 2003)

Nuclear bombs weren't dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for "test" reasons... Try Bikini Island or that base in Nevada...  They were dropped to end a war, and it worked.

And about executing Saddam; let the Iraqis decide!  If they decide to lock him up forever, so be it.  If they decide to kill him, so be it!  I don't see why we should argue about it here as if the U.S. military is going to do it.


----------



## Muzgal (Dec 16, 2003)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> Nuclear bombs weren't dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for "test" reasons... Try Bikini Island or that base in Nevada...  They were dropped to end a war, and it worked.


As all this is off topic all i shall say just that I don't agree. The war was won already, Japan was going to surrender, and the US knew it. However they surrendered sooner because of the bomb. There may have been _two_ reasons for the bomb... (shock multiple motives  )


----------



## mdnky (Dec 16, 2003)

MDLarson said:
			
		

> And about executing Saddam; let the Iraqis decide!  If they decide to lock him up forever, so be it.  If they decide to kill him, so be it!  I don't see why we should argue about it here as if the U.S. military is going to do it.



I agree on that, even if I am all for his execution; they do and should, have a right to handle him...as it was them who he caused the pain and suffering.




			
				Muzgal said:
			
		

> As all this is off topic all i shall say just that I don't agree. The war was won already, Japan was going to surrender, and the US knew it. However they surrendered sooner because of the bomb. There may have been two reasons for the bomb... (shock multiple motives  )


I disagree...those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.  Maybe Saddam had WMDs, maybe not.  That doesn't detract from the atrocities he committed during his reign.  We drug our feet during the start of WWII, and paid dearly for it (all the allies did, US included) in terms of lives and time.

Luckily we learned our lesson then, that it is our responsibiliy to ensure our own safety and a similar thing can be said among our allies.  

Now, the whole problem with Japan in WWII was even though we drove them back, they weren't ready to surrender.  If you think that you really need to take some courses on their culture, especially during that time period.  

I mean, does kamikaze ring a bell?  You're telling me a country, who inspired pilots to kill themselves using their own planes (and we're talking day in day out by a large sum) was just going to admit defeat because we were knocking at their door?  The answer to that is a big NO.  Had the bombs not been dropped, untold numbers of Allied soliders would have parished in the ensuing battles.  There's no doubt about it, don't agree then check out the stats on the war for the 3 or 4 weeks leading up to their drop.  It's plain as day.


----------



## Arden (Dec 16, 2003)

There were other, more effective ways the troops in WWII could have committed murder on a large scale to end the war with Japan, like carpet bombing.  They used the A-bomb more as a sign of power (one bomb, 100,000 casualties) than to merely end the war.  It would have been quite easy to wipe Japan off the map.


----------



## Muzgal (Dec 16, 2003)

mdnky said:
			
		

> I disagree...those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.  Maybe Saddam had WMDs, maybe not.  That doesn't detract from the atrocities he committed during his reign.  We drug our feet during the start of WWII, and paid dearly for it (all the allies did, US included) in terms of lives and time.


I am not sure if the Iraqis should judge Saddam, apart from anything else he cannot get a fair trial there, not that I think you would care. However my point about practising what we preach and the negative effect perceived hypocrisy would have on your (our) reputation the muslim countries still stands.

I don't agree about Japan, however I do see your point, though I agree with Arden. I am not a historian, and though I would willingly engage in a debate on that subject I shalln't because: a) I do not have the time to do the research, nor do I have my history texts with me at Univeristy b) I think the debate is probably futile anyway, as we put different values on human life (objectively at least I try to see each life as being of the same value, though I still would say that Saddam derserves to die. You on the other hand seem either to not view human life objectively, or to believe that the lives of people like you are worth more than others. I can genuinely see that is a valid position, it is just not one I would ever hold, objectively or morally, myself) (I would see the decision to save myself or family over others as a selfish decision, one that is morally dubious, but the decision I would make if in such a situation).

(incidentally one of the major causes of the political instability that triggered WWII was countries not going to the League of Nations for support for their actions)

I do not like this get them before they get you approach, which is the logical conclusion of what we would learn from the appeasement at the start of WWII. Apart from anything else the main reason for appeasement was that we were not ready to go to war. Chamberlain's little piece of paper bought time, not much, but even so the option of attacking Germany was not there, Britain could not afford an army at the time, and the US army was not so great that you guys wanted to fight on your own. Unfortunately it took us a long time to get armies to battle strength, and by that time it was two late. Appeasement wasn't just lilly livered liberals, it was more complex than that.
Attacking someone because you think they might attack you taken to its logical conclusion means attacking everyone, because they _might_ attack you. So there has to be a cut off point, they must be an actual threat (as you cannot know whether they want to attack you... so you must just go by _if_ they did, whether it would matter). I am afraid Iraq was not crossing that line, they were not a threat to the US, and would not have been this decade. And if you are telling me that American intelligence was really so bad that they did not how weak Iraq was then...


----------



## Arden (Dec 16, 2003)

I caught some snippets of a Diane Sawyer interview with Bush this evening.  Basically, I think Bush wants Saddam to burn in hell, but he's going to let the Iraqi people deal with himor at least that's what he said.  We'll have to wait and see if he keeps his word or not.


----------



## adambyte (Dec 17, 2003)

Uh... yeah.... Bush wants him dead, too. Oi vey. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3326311.stm


----------



## mdnky (Dec 17, 2003)

Muzgal said:
			
		

> I am not sure if the Iraqis should judge Saddam, apart from anything else he cannot get a fair trial there, not that I think you would care. However my point about practising what we preach and the negative effect perceived hypocrisy would have on your (our) reputation the muslim countries still stands.


I agree, but when you commit genocide against men, women, and childred...of your own country...the you probably already have an idea, if ever caught, that your 'you know what' is grass.




			
				Muzgal said:
			
		

> You on the other hand seem either to not view human life objectively, or to believe that the lives of people like you are worth more than others. I can genuinely see that is a valid position, it is just not one I would ever hold, objectively or morally, myself (I would see the decision to save myself or family over others as a selfish decision, one that is morally dubious, but the decision I would make if in such a situation).


Why is this?  Because I believe he should pay for what he's done?  I'm sorry, but if you kill someone, or in this case multitudes of people, for any other reason other than by pure accident or self defense; then you deserve to loose you life.  

I would die protecting someone I loved, my wife or children, before allowing harm to come to them.  If someone attacked a friend of mine, I would also do anything possible to ensure our safety, and I have no quipes about using lethal force against someone attacking myself, or another, if the situation demands it be.




			
				Muzgal said:
			
		

> I do not like this get them before they get you approach, which is the logical conclusion of what we would learn from the appeasement at the start of WWII. Apart from anything else the main reason for appeasement was that we were not ready to go to war...........I am afraid Iraq was not crossing that line, they were not a threat to the US, and would not have been this decade. And if you are telling me that American intelligence was really so bad that they did not how weak Iraq was then...


Well, a good offense is the best defense.  Regardless, the problem in WWII (leading up to it) was we let him rebuild his military, and did nothing with ours.  In the begining, had we got our butts in gear and actually forced compliance with the Treaty of Versailles, which was very specific in saying no large military, WWII would have been avoided.  By not acting, we paid a severe price and learned a hard lesson.

Iraq, Saddam in actuality, repeadtly violated the cease-fire agreed upon in the first Gulf War.  He had been given way too many second chances, way too many warnings.  Sound similar at all yet?  Sure, he may not have been capable YET to cause any real harm, but that was only a matter of time.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Dec 18, 2003)

Just something more for you guys to discuss:

The USA sold many weapons to Iraq in the war against Iran (the first Gulf War). I am originally from Iran and I lost many relatives during that time because of US weapons and Iraqi fingers on the trigger.
Now, what am I supposed to do now? Do I have the right to defend myself against this actions of USA and Iraq and walk over dead bodies?
It's not that I am full of anger. I was too young in those days to understand it all. But thinking of it and having Michaels (mdnky) attitude would force me to revange for this now that it happened, right?
Would you do so if you were in my situation, Michael? If not, why not? It was no "accident" in this case. USA knew what they were doing when they sold their weapons to Iraq..


----------



## Cat (Dec 18, 2003)

This makes an interesting read ...

In Africa dictators, rebels, tribes and whatnot have been exterminating one another for ages, millions have died, upper classes ensure that they remain rich and in control while their subjects starve of hunger and AIDS. Why isn't the US of A bombing them to smithereens?
Israel is violating UN resolutions since it was founded, attacked countries, conquered land, is illegally occupying land, has a not-so-hidden WMD arsenal: what is the US of A doing? They lend them money to carry on. Strange world isn't it?
None of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq, several were from Saudi-Arabia, which by the way has strong ties with Osama Bin Laden ... I don't see the US of A bombing them though ... 

Saddam must have a fair trial, in Iraq and cannot be sentenced to death. Why? Too many countries are in principle opposed to the death penalty. The US of A will never get support if they plan from the start to execute Saddam. Bush should never have said that he wanted him dead. The best would be a public trial by an UN established court in Iraq, just like the one in The Hague for Milosevic.


----------



## Zammy-Sam (Dec 18, 2003)

The reason for USA attacking Iraq and Saddam was because of the holocaust weapons, how they say. Did they find any?
Now, how perfect would it be, if they could make Saddam just say they had some?


----------



## mdnky (Dec 18, 2003)

Zammy-Sam said:
			
		

> Just something more for you guys to discuss:
> 
> The USA sold many weapons to Iraq in the war against Iran (the first Gulf War). I am originally from Iran and I lost many relatives during that time because of US weapons and Iraqi fingers on the trigger.
> Now, what am I supposed to do now? Do I have the right to defend myself against this actions of USA and Iraq and walk over dead bodies?
> ...



The war in question is most likely what's commonly known as the Iraq-Iran war.  I think you need to learn not to believe everything you hear from rumors or see on TV first, and base it more on facts than conjecture.  From what I have gathered, you seem hell-bent on Blamining the USA soley for problems that aren't necessarily all it's fault, and this is most likely based on disinformation.  

Oh, and you better add France and Russia to the top of your list while your at it.

-France became the major source of Iraq's high-tech weaponry, in no small part to protect its financial stake in that country.
-The Soviet Union was Iraq's largest weapon's supplier, while jockeying for influence in both capitals. Israel provided arms to Iran, hoping to bleed the combatants by prolonging the war. And at least ten nations sold arms to both of the warring sides.
-The U.S. objective was not profits from the arms trade, but the much more significant aim of controlling to the greatest extent possible the region's oil resources.

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

I can't say how I would handle it, but I wouldn't live in the past if that's what you're asking.  I am interested in knowing if these relatives were civilian casualties, or were military.  See, if they were the later then they knew what could happen and they were just as guilty as anyone else, if you apply your viewpoint of course.  

In fact, during that war Iran turned into far worse of an agressor, employing terrorism over traditional means of warfare.  You can argue all you want about it, but both sides were equally responsible for the events that took place.

But alas, we are getting way off the topic here.


----------



## Cat (Dec 20, 2003)

Another very interesting source on America-Iraq relations is Juan Cole's Informed Comment. Very interesting indeed. Make sure you read the story about "Rumfsfeld, Bechtel and Iraq". 
You also may want to read this...


----------



## Arden (Dec 21, 2003)

Please, _please_ don't drag Israel into this.  I don't mind if you talk about them in the context of Iraq (providing weapons), but Israel is a topic for a different thread.  I will debate you heavily about it in that thread, though.



			
				One of Moore's letter writers said:
			
		

> Wow, 130,000 troops on the ground, nearly 500 deaths and over a billion dollars a day, but they caught a guy living in a hole. Am I supposed to be dazzled?


 Indeed... when was this war supposed to be over, again?


----------



## pds (Dec 21, 2003)

Cat, 
Who was it who said that we shouldn't judge a person just because he changed his mind? Cicero I think...

American policy in the Middle East -sans Ysroel- has been consistent with it's principle of self-interest (national interest). It has always worked to secure the free flow of oil, either directly or by proxy. That was even the reason for unflinching support of Israel in the 50's and 60' as the Arab nations flirted with communism and fashioned Soviet-styled republics. Today there are different alignments, but the same cold-war mentality prevails in Washington, so the flip-flop is not as sinister as it may appear on the face.

Stupid and short sighted maybe, but not sinister.

And so the chickens still roost at home.


----------



## MDLarson (Dec 21, 2003)

> Originally Posted by One of Moore's letter writers
> Wow, 130,000 troops on the ground, nearly 500 deaths and over a billion dollars a day, but they caught a guy living in a hole. Am I supposed to be dazzled?


That is a simplistic and immature way of puting it.  Nobody is asking anybody to be dazzled by Saddam's capture, but at least the Democratic hopefuls gave Bush a day of respect...  As I understand it, the _administration itself_ did not promise or expect an amazing drop in terrorist attacks or anything.  We don't need snide remarks, thanks.


----------

