Saddam possibly captured

[Skywarp! 0]

It's no use, guys.  Anything or anyone politically moderate on this board is ferociously attacked by the far-right as they would be on a far-left board.  For people like me, you just can't win.

There are good conservative posters here. We have a healthy mix of both liberals and conservatives (as DrTom said).

True. Plus, I tend to play Devil's Advocate no matter where I am. I take the conservative side on a liberal dominated board, and vice-versa. Maybe I enjoy the exchange of ideas, or maybe the Irish in me just likes to stir the pot?

[godthedog 0]

I don't believe that there were any WMD's when the Invasion Of Iraq was launched. Let's not forget who sold him various weapons in the first place.

Ah, glorious irrelevancy. I am sure there are LESS relevant points to be made --- but I shudder to imagine them.

i like cheese.

[BX 0]

Yeah, Bush won. Cleanly.

Mike, you say some stupid things, but that statement has to be among the top. Who in their right mind would call that debacle a "clean" win for Bush? I mean seriously, man.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Yeah, Bush won. Cleanly.

Mike, you say some stupid things, but that statement has to be among the top. Who in their right mind would call that debacle a "clean" win for Bush? I mean seriously, man.

Maybe every newspaper that's done a recount has said that Bush won?

[BX 0]

Oh Jesus. For every newspaper article you produce stating that Bush would have won, I'll produce one that says Gore would have won. Completely pointless, and it ignores the fact that Gore GOT MORE VOTES.

 

Reagan's blowout reelection win in 1984 was a "clean" victory. The election in 2000 was far too close for any sensible and logical person to claim that it was "clean".

[Guest Cerebus]

So BX if all this garbage had gone in favor of Gore would you say HE won a "clean" victory?

[BX 0]

So we're being subjective now?

 

You know what I'd say, and I know you'd call me a liar anyway.

 

EDIT: Look at this government website, and see who got more votes.

 

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm

 

With 400 votes between the leader (Gore) and runner-up (Bush), how can you possibly say that Bush got a "clean win"? And before you start, I know of the role of the Electoral College and it's archaic rules.

[Guest Cerebus]

So we're being subjective now?

 

You know what I'd say, and I know you'd call me a liar anyway.

 

EDIT: Look at this government website, and see who got more votes.

 

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm

 

With 400 votes between the leader (Gore) and runner-up (Bush), how can you possibly say that Bush got a "clean win"?

WTF? I wasn't being an ass it was an honest question.

 

Edited to add: And that's POPULAR vote. Maybe this site will help you understand a bit more.

[Justice 0]

I don't believe that there were any WMD's when the Invasion Of Iraq was launched. Let's not forget who sold him various weapons in the first place.

He has Russian Tanks, Russian Artillery, Russian Planes (With some French Mirages as well), Russian SAMs, Russian APCs... Yeah, I think we do. But I'm sure this was trying to be a hit at the US for giving Saddam a token amount of Anthrax and Chemical weapons back in the 80's, ignoring the fact that the Russians (And partly the French) literally built his military to where it was in 1991 and 2003.

 

And that's the last of the negativity that I'm going to bring tonight.

[Vyce 0]

Christ, are we on the Bush v. Gore thing AGAIN?

 

Look, ask yourself this question - who's sitting in the White House now?

 

Bush?

 

Or Gore?

 

You know which one is there. It may not be the guy you want, but it's THAT guy, so kindly please quit the bitching because it's IRRELEVANT.

 

Feel free, though, to adopt a "Well, he's not MY president" attitude, though, because that was just as retarded when the Republicans / conservatives did it during the Clinton era.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Terrorists aren't a threat to the U.S?

 

Man, you learned nothing from 9/11, did you?

It seems most of these men have absolutely nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. They're poorly organized and are far from Al-Qaeda standards. Direct threat, my ass.

Wow.

 

This thread has REALLY brought out the bitterness in you.

The left HATES anything that is good, apparently.

-=Mike

I want to make it clear. I'm HAPPY a ruthless dictator was put on the shelf. I think we can all unite behind that. I just don't 100% agree with the whole process.

 

According to various news stories (though I can't seem to find an actual link right now), an official (not sure if military or Executive branch) said the $25 million bounty won't be paid out because the capture was brought on by interrogation intel. He said "We have saved the taxpayers $25 million."

 

Hell, you know what they should do? They're just going to spend that money on something else anyway. So they should take that money and add it to Osama's $25 million bounty and put $50mil on his head. He's the reason we're out there anyway.

[Guest hunger4unger]

I don't believe that there were any WMD's when the Invasion Of Iraq was launched. Let's not forget who sold him various weapons in the first place.

Ah, glorious irrelevancy. I am sure there are LESS relevant points to be made --- but I shudder to imagine them.

Whilst Saddam must stand trial and receive punishment for his horrible crimes against his own people, I don't think it is fair for him to be tried by a court consisting of an Iraqi judge and jury (as reported) as they are bound to have a biased view, therefore it not being a fair trial. He should be tried in an international court of law.

You mean Saddam should be tried by people he owes A LOT of money to? Yeah, THAT sounds impartial.

A point I would like to raise is how many 'blackmail bombers' will come out of the woodwork, for example "release Saddam or I blow up this building".

Who cares? They'll be dealt with.

The situation over there is hugely complicated and to be blunt, a mess.

 

As for anyone voting for Bush next year - I wouldn't bother the fix is already in!

Ah, "the fix" --- that deep, intricate gov't conspiracy that journalists can't seem to unravel but some anonymous little dude on a wrestling message board has figured out?

 

I laugh at you presently.

-=Mike

I don't see how stating that the west sold Iraq arms is irrelevant here. The fact is that we supplied him with weapons and chemicals. Granted, he still would have got them from another source if we hadn't but the fact remains.

 

Who does he owe money to? You simply can't have him being tried by Iraqi's. That's the prosecution judging the defendant!

 

Saying that blackmail bombers "will be dealt with" is very easy to type isn't it but won't be so easy to deal with in the real world.

 

As for "the fix" - it isn't a conspiracy. Michael Moore figured it out and detailed what happened in his first book. No doubt Moore is a "loon" though. It's a fact that Gore had the most votes - even more if the people who were deemed to be ex-convicts (and weren't) were allowed to vote. Lets not forget the absentee ballots as well. As for "journalists" not figuring it out - plenty of news sources have. Try switching over from Fox.

[Guest hunger4unger]

DNA test I presume but you do raise a great point. I liked how they got the DNA sample too - by violating the Geneva convention.

You mean from the corpses of his dead sons? Wasn't aware that that consitutes a violation --- but to paraphrase the President, "Oops, better call my lawyer"

Filming a prisoner and ridiculing him (by filming him, by showing where he was caught, by taking the swab on TV) is against the convention.

A medical exam is "ridiculing"? And showing where he was caught hardly constitutes a violation. Man, my heart BLEEDS for poor ol' Uncle Saddam.

There again, when did the US ever give a crap about that? (See Camp X-Ray)

Care to explain what the heck you mean? I doubt you know, either.

-=Mike

I wasn't referring to his dead sons I was referring to ex- President Hussain. (Why do people call him Saddam? It's not like we call GW Bush "George"). The violation, if indeed the geneva convention applies, is FILMING Hussain. I think that the TV pictures were fascinating to watch but you can't have double standards.

 

Showing the examination on TV IS ridiculing him. If Hussain had captured GW Bush and the same happened to him - what would you think? Showing where he was found, in a small, dirty hole, is also ridiculing him.

 

Regarding camp X-ray: oh boy. It's that prison camp in Cuba where the American's are holding prisoners, most of them without charge and are denied the opportunity to defend themselves or appoint a lawyer. They are also kept in appalling conditions.

[2GOLD 0]

I've come to the realization that Bush or his puppet masters could end terrorism, world hunger, save all innocent animals from slaughter, find a clean fuel source, learn to tap dance, somehow find a way to have world peace and people would STILL complain about something.

 

All I care about is a monster was caught. That's it. And telling me that politics is full of crooks is nothing new on either side of the coin so that I really wasn't caring about nor did I care about when it happened. This I care about.

[Jingus 0]

God, my head hurts when I read this folder sometimes. A few salient points:

 

1. Bush won the election. He won it fair and square by the rules of the Electoral College system. Now, the College itself may be ridiculously antiquated and obsolete, and more people nationwide did vote for Gore than Bush. But by the rules of the contest, Bush won, fair and square. (And this is coming from a guy who thinks Bush seems like one of the dumbest guys we've had in the Oval Office in quite a while.)

 

2. Yes, the U.S. did supply Saddam Hussein's Iraq with some weapons... almost twenty years ago. To combat the terrorist state of Iran, which had participated in many terrorist attacks around the world which had claimed quite a few American lives. At the time, Iraq had done nothing like that. There was no possible way they could've known that Hussein would've turned out like he did. (And other countries have sold many, MANY times the weapons to Iraq than the US did, much more recently.)

 

3. Of course Saddam will be tried by an Iraqi court. With the entire Middle East being so obsessive about Iraqis ruling Iraq and America getting out as soon as possible, can you imagine the backlash if we didn't let the locals do with Saddam whatever they pleased?

 

4. How is filming a guy a violation of his rights? Here in America, that's done all the time, by various paparrazzi to various celebrities on a daily basis. (And America is one of the most rights-protecting countries in the world.) Simply showing pictures of what a captured criminal looks like, or where he was hiding from an entire world looking for him, is hardly a violation. If they show the "small, dirty hole" that Saddam was hiding in, it's his fault for being in the damn thing to begin with.

 

5. Um... are we EVER going to find any WMDs? The more time goes on, the more I worry about that. What happened to all the intelligence we supposedly had about them, like their exact quantities and locations, that was being used for justification for the invasion?

[Skywarp! 0]

"1. Bush won the election. He won it fair and square by the rules of the Electoral College system."

 

But the whole dems. argument of the "Bush didn't win fair and square" wasn't that the rules of the Electoral College said he won as opposed to the Popular Vote, it was that they belive Jeb Bush staged a fix in Florida.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Holy hell.

 

I'm liberal, and I don't think that there was a Jeb Bush fix in Florida. Instead, I'd think that Gore's team didn't do a good job trying to recount the vote. Leagally, he was entitled to have EVERY SINGLE VOTE in the state recounted. Instead, he tried to do this county, this other thing, and what else. Meanwhile, Bush's team played it safe, stating that it had won, and that Gore's team would want to recount until they were satisfied with the result. It's not that hard to figure out.

 

Do I like our current President? Not particularly. I think that the current tax cut has done much help; my annual paid taxes went up over the past year. Do I agree with WHY we INITIALLY went to war with Iraq? No. Am I happy Saddam is now in custody? Yes.

 

Mike: I laugh at you, whenever you post, and it's not for the right reasons. Let's take a look at a few of your gems:

 

Ah, glorious irrelevancy. I am sure there are LESS relevant points to be made --- but I shudder to imagine them.

 

It is important for this point to be MADE. The people of the United States need to remember that we helped put Saddam into power. We also helped put a dictator in Guatemala. How many people know that? It's surprising that you try to ignore this fact. Sure, the claim can be made that we didn't know where he was going to go with our arms and such. But shouldn't you figure out what his views are before you make him "President?" I also shudder to think how many people still know that we gave Osama his weapons and cash in order to eliminate the USSR from Afghanistan, and then we just up and left. It's facts like these that are left out of stories in order to set an agenda. I'm not going to make this a media debate, though.

 

You mean Saddam should be tried by people he owes A LOT of money to? Yeah, THAT sounds impartial.

 

And yet he should be tried by the people he terrorized for over twenty years, suppressed everyone around him. Sure, that's just as impartial.

 

Maybe an international tribunal using countries that he doesn't owe money to would work. Sounds a bit more impartial than your concept, buddy.

[Justice 0]

"1. Bush won the election. He won it fair and square by the rules of the Electoral College system."

 

But the whole dems. argument of the "Bush didn't win fair and square" wasn't that the rules of the Electoral College said he won as opposed to the Popular Vote, it was that they belive Jeb Bush staged a fix in Florida.

Holy Conspiracy theories! Did you guys EVER wonder why Gore only asked for a recount in 3 counties? Because he knew he had no chance to clear the small gap if he included Republican counties. If he really thought he won the state, why didn't he ask for a simple statewide recount (By the way, all of the subsequent Newspaper-done recounts have shown that yes, he did win)? Disputing Florida is idiotic; that would suggest that every poll worker in the inner city is a Republican so that they could turn away people because they were "ex-convicts". How likely do you think THAT is? People lack knowledge of what a real fix is: Chicago/Daly, when they had DEAD PEOPLE voting.

 

In Conclusion, shut up about the 2000 election. Congratulations, you got the popular vote. You also won less than 200 Congressional districts. That's like thinking you won a football game because you have the most offensive yardage. Sorry, but you have to get points instead.

 

Oh, and I have a new respect for Wildbomb. You really are more moderate than I thought. I guess I was a bit jaded about you because you are only kinda far left on media subjects and that's all I used to see you post in...

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

So I'm flipping around the newschannels looking for any new information on how Iraqis being taken into custody today, and I come across a Fox News anchor interviewing Howard Dean's foreign policy adviser.

 

Hilarious!

 

I mean, I'd never actually watched Fox News before. I gravitate MSNBC cause of those smokin' hotties Brian Williams and Soledad O'Brien. This anchor - and maybe someone can tell me who he was, on at 2:45, kinda jowly, big forehead - was just baiting the hell out of the guy, making all sorts of ridiculous statements in hilariously overblown rhetoric about how Dean thinks we shouldn't have captured Saddam, etc. Then the policy adviser starts to respond, and the anchor cuts him off and says they're going to commercial. Is that how it always works, or did I just catch a really funny moment?

[Guest JMA]

So I'm flipping around the newschannels looking for any new information on how Iraqis being taken into custody today, and I come across a Fox News anchor interviewing Howard Dean's foreign policy adviser.

 

Hilarious!

 

I mean, I'd never actually watched Fox News before. I gravitate MSNBC cause of those smokin' hotties Brian Williams and Soledad O'Brien. This anchor - and maybe someone can tell me who he was, on at 2:45, kinda jowly, big forehead - was just baiting the hell out of the guy, making all sorts of ridiculous statements in hilariously overblown rhetoric about how Dean thinks we shouldn't have captured Saddam, etc. Then the policy adviser starts to respond, and the anchor cuts him off and says they're going to commercial. Is that how it always works, or did I just catch a really funny moment?

O'Reilly?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Sheppard Smith maybe?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I wasn't referring to his dead sons I was referring to ex- President Hussain. (Why do people call him Saddam? It's not like we call GW Bush "George"). The violation, if indeed the geneva convention applies, is FILMING Hussain. I think that the TV pictures were fascinating to watch but you can't have double standards.

I think he's labeled as a Prisoner Of War, not an enemy combatant. Geneva Convention is regarding enemy combatants.

 

Of course, this will just come back and bite us in the ass if kept up too much. I'm not too thrilled with parading Saddam and showing the doctor checking for lice in his hair on TV, as if it goes too far the Arab people could genuinely see it as humiliating.

 

And I'll be honest, I don't agree with GW on almost anything except the Do Not Call list, but if another country captured him and had him humiliated on TV, I'd be absolutely furious.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

2. Yes, the U.S. did supply Saddam Hussein's Iraq with some weapons... almost twenty years ago.

The war with Iran went on until about 1987 or so. In 1988, right after the war ended, Saddam gassed a Kurdish town. Shortly after that he invaded Kuwait.

 

If you think all our weapons went to the proper purposes, then you're wrong.

 

4. How is filming a guy a violation of his rights?

Geneva Convention laws may apply depending if the guy is an enemy combatant or a prisoner of war. He resigned when found (despite years of talk about wanting to be a martyr and die for his people, etc, but all these dictators are like that) and they should just go ahead and grant him the rights of a Prisoner of War, which isn't very much.

[Jingus 0]

The war with Iran went on until about 1987 or so. In 1988, right after the war ended, Saddam gassed a Kurdish town. Shortly after that he invaded Kuwait.

 

If you think all our weapons went to the proper purposes, then you're wrong.

If you think that we would actually give any country deadly chemical gas weapons, then you're wrong.

 

Does anyone here have a full report on what exactly was given to Iraq by America, so we can end this argument?

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I have a thought that's more important than all of this bickering.

 

Has Saddam Hussein seen the South Park movie? If not, are we allowed to show it to him?

[Justice 0]

I have a thought that's more important than all of this bickering.

 

Has Saddam Hussein seen the South Park movie? If not, are we allowed to show it to him?

... So this means that Trey Parker and Matt Stone are War Criminals because they violated the Geneva Convention?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If you think that we would actually give any country deadly chemical gas weapons, then you're wrong.

We did not. We did, however, continue to assist them when we KNEW they had chemical weapons.

[Justice 0]

If you think that we would actually give any country deadly chemical gas weapons, then you're wrong.

We did not. We did, however, continue to assist them when we KNEW they had chemical weapons.

How much assistance did we actually give? I only remember the one time back in 1983. That's about it.

[BX 0]

http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/isafp/2002/...2/msg00148.html

 

Here is a list I found. Among the entries related to the U.S., are the following..

 

An American company, Pfaulder Corporation of Rochester, New York,

supplied the Iraqis with a blueprint in 1975, enabling them to construct

their first chemical warfare plant.  The plant was purchased in sections

from Italy, West Germany and East Germany and assembled in Iraq.  It was

located at Akhashat in north-western Iraq, and the cost was around $50

million for the plant and $30 million for the safety equipment. 

 

The United States took other steps to ensure that Saddam's rule was

strengthened.  Mobile phone systems were mainly in the military domain at

the time, but the United States government approved the 1975 sale by the

Karkar Corporation of San Francisco of a complete mobile telephone system.

The system was to be used by the Ba'ath Party loyalists to protect the

regime against any attempts to overthrow it. 

 

The United States also supplied Saddam with satellite pictures of

Iranian positions during the Iran-Iraq war. 

 

When Saddam did in fact "use chemical weapons against his own

people", he did so on the afternoon of 17 March 1988, against the Kurdish

city of Halabja.  The United States provided diplomatic cover by initially

blaming Iran for the attack.  The Reagan Administration tried to prevent

criticism of the atrocity.  The Bush (senior) administration authorised new

loans to Saddam in order to achieve the "goal of increasing US exports and

put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights

record". 

 

15.    The US Department of Commerce licensed the export of biological

materials - including a range of pathogenic agents - as well as plans for

chemical and biological warfare production facilities and chemical-warhead

filling equipment - to Iraq until December 1989, 20 months after the Halabja

atrocity.

 

There is also several entries about France's role, for anyone who wants to change the subject.

[Justice 0]

The last one is pretty much the big offense there. The other things are simple business deals (Done by companies rather than the US Government.) Is there any proof that the US Gov't had any involvement on the first one, though?