Saddam possibly captured

[Cartman 0]

Saddam's caputre pretty much puts Bush in the Oval Office until 2008, if for no other reason, then the fact that for over a year now, the general public has heard nothing but officials and president claim that capturing Saddam is the most important piece in the war on terrorism etc......

 

So it is really up to whether the general public buys into this theory. I am very happy with our troops and think they did a tremendous job, however I don't believe Saddam is the main force behind these attacks, as I never did. Fortunately for the president, I think he has convinced the american public of just that, over the course of a year of manipulation.

 

But, at least for today and probably the next week(possibly month) I don't give a shit. Congrats on capturing that motherfucker.

The General Public will buy into anything. Survivor and other lame ass fake "Reality TV" shows proved that already.

[Justice 0]

Cheney owned Halliburton? GET OUTTA TOWN!

 

Hi, I'm Dick Cheney and I'm the former owner of THE EVIL CORPORATION

:firedevil: HALLIBURTON :firedevil:

[Cartman 0]

Deniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiial

[Guest MikeSC]

I got woke up for this.

 

Well, color me suprised. Guys like this usually blow themselves away. The affects of this will most likely be felt in the very short and likely the very long runs.

 

It's a great boost of morale, and it's good to know that guy won't be on the streets again when all is done. On the other hand, attacks will step up until that happens.

ACTUALLY, the ironic thing is that guys like this DON'T tend to off themselves. They will ask and expect their supporters to do it --- but they won't.

 

He didn't. Hitler didn't. When we find him, bin Laden will be alive, too.

-=Mike

[Firestarter 0]

Click here to read a transcript of the President's address.

 

We've come to this moment through patience and resolve and focused action. And that is our strategy moving forward. The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture, cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by our perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty. And the United States of America will not relent until this war is won.

 

May God bless the people of Iraq, and may God bless America.

 

God bless you, Mr President.

[pappajacks 0]

I got woke up for this.

 

Well, color me suprised. Guys like this usually blow themselves away. The affects of this will most likely be felt in the very short and likely the very long runs.

 

It's a great boost of morale, and it's good to know that guy won't be on the streets again when all is done. On the other hand, attacks will step up until that happens.

ACTUALLY, the ironic thing is that guys like this DON'T tend to off themselves. They will ask and expect their supporters to do it --- but they won't.

 

He didn't. Hitler didn't. When we find him, bin Laden will be alive, too.

-=Mike

That's because Hussein wants to give his side of the story, the relationships he had with the US, France, Russia and Germany throughout the last 2 decades. A lot of politicians will end up looking very bad.

 

I think they should go even further and find out who entrenched him in power and supplied him with his arsenal.

[KingPK 0]

Heh, anyone see CBS lose the feed during the President's speech?

 

Dan Rather had the ".......shit" face going.

[Guest MikeSC]

That's because Hussein wants to give his side of the story, the relationships he had with the US, France, Russia and Germany throughout the last 2 decades. A lot of politicians will end up looking very bad.

 

I think they should go even further and find out who entrenched him in power and supplied him with his arsenal.

Yeah, THAT is the reason he didn't die rather than being captured?

 

Sure.

 

Hold on to THAT pipe dream.

 

Are you Kamui?

 

Nothing about Saddam is unknown. We're fully aware that the U.S gave him weapons in the 80's and that France supplied him with arms after that. No big deal --- no embarrassment.

 

But, hey, if living in misery is what you wish to do, go ahead. I'm a happy camper.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

I think they should go even further and find out who entrenched him in power and supplied him with his arsenal.

Lemme guess... us giving him a small amount of Anthrax and chemical weapons somehow completely cemented his reign of terror. w00t!

[BX 0]

Wait, Hitler didn't kill himself? Colour me cofuzzed..

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That's because Hussein wants to give his side of the story, the relationships he had with the US, France, Russia and Germany throughout the last 2 decades. A lot of politicians will end up looking very bad.

 

I think they should go even further and find out who entrenched him in power and supplied him with his arsenal.

I was wondering if Rumsfeld could technically be brought in as a witness.

 

 

 

Mmm, a chance to post my favorite picture:

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Wait, Hitler didn't kill himself? Colour me cofuzzed..

I think he had his wife kill him.

[Guest BDC]

He was found in the bunker with his mistress, Eva Peron. How he died? Hell, I'm just glad he's dead.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I think the biggest issue here is "How will this affect the attacks on our troops who are still in Iraq trying to keep the peace till they can get a country off the ground?" Will the attacks lessen now, or will they get worse now that we've got Saddam?

 

 

BTW, Hitler's mistress was Eva Braun, not Eva Peron.

[Guest BDC]

lol, well done Zsasz. I need some coffee.

 

This does make me wonder, though, with Hussien captured, does that take the wind out of the sails of the Ba'ath members or not?

[Mole 0]

It's good that we got Saddam, but this means that Bush will win again next year.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I think the biggest issue here is "How will this affect the attacks on our troops who are still in Iraq trying to keep the peace till they can get a country off the ground?" Will the attacks lessen now, or will they get worse now that we've got Saddam?

 

 

BTW, Hitler's mistress was Eva Braun, not Eva Peron.

I think they'll get worse for a few weeks but the Iraqi civilians will be more likely to turn them in now that Saddam is captured.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Nice job by the US military.

 

CNN is talking about how the main tension coming out of this could be between the US, who may want to interrogate Hussein for long periods of time about WMDs and may even offer him some sort of deal in exchange for info on WMDs and Bin Laden and so on, and the Iraqi Governing Council who will probably want some sort of quick show trial to make an example out of Hussein and assert their authority over the country.

[Downhome 0]

We should make Saddam play HIMSELF in a new Hot Shots movie.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

This new-fangled "one casualty is too many" approach to military engagement never ceases to amaze me.

 

We lost 441 soldiers from the whole Iraq conflict last time I checked. The fact of the matter is that the longer we stay in Iraq, the more it will become another Vietnam.

[Guest NaturalBornThriller4:20]

Don't be fooled, people.

 

That's not Saddam, it's Nick Nolte dressed up as David Banner.

[Justice 0]

This new-fangled "one casualty is too many" approach to military engagement never ceases to amaze me.

 

We lost 441 soldiers from the whole Iraq conflict last time I checked. The fact of the matter is that the longer we stay in Iraq, the more it will become another Vietnam.

...

...

...

*Shakes head*

 

Dude, you should be smacked. Hard.

[Dr. Tom 0]

The fact of the matter is that the longer we stay in Iraq, the more it will become another Vietnam.

No, the fact of the matter is that you can't fight a war without people dying. Somewhere along the way, Americans seem to have gotten the impression that one soldier killed is too many, and we shouldn't be doing whatever we're doing, and OMG bring the boys back home. Rubbish. As a civilian working for the Army, I'm saddened by the death of every American and allied soldier. But just because we've had 1, 5, 50, or 441 deaths doesn't mean what we're doing isn't just and necessary, and it doesn't mean we need to pull out and bring everyone home.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

This new-fangled "one casualty is too many" approach to military engagement never ceases to amaze me.

 

We lost 441 soldiers from the whole Iraq conflict last time I checked. The fact of the matter is that the longer we stay in Iraq, the more it will become another Vietnam.

441 dead in almost 8 months is almost unheard of in the history of military conflicts. Once it starts getting in the 3-5 THOUSAND range start talking about it's not going well.

Edited December 14, 2003 by Mad Dog

[BX 0]

This new-fangled "one casualty is too many" approach to military engagement never ceases to amaze me.

 

We lost 441 soldiers from the whole Iraq conflict last time I checked. The fact of the matter is that the longer we stay in Iraq, the more it will become another Vietnam.

441 dead in almost 8 months is almost unheard of in the history of military comflicts. Once it starts getting in the 3-5 THOUSAND range start talking about it's not going well.

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA..

 

First of all, 15,000 american soldiers died in Vietnam in 1968 ALONE. The peace movement of the 60's was the result of those mass numbers of people dying. Nearly 6,000 in '66, 10,000 in 1967 and 1969. The protestors in the 60's had a valid fucking reason for protesting, and anything that happens in the next few months in Iraq is nothing.

 

Secondly, "comflict".

[Dr. Tom 0]

And for the far left point of view, we now turn you over to Eric Szulczewski's BlackLog at 411:

 

Big deal.

 

So they got Saddam. Where are the WMDs you promised us, Dubbaya? Where's bin Laden? Where are the guys who keep blowing up our troops because they're an unwelcome occupying force?

 

What they got was a 66-year-old guy who was on the wrong side of a vendetta, who's perfectly harmless except to one group of people: the Junta. He has information inside of his head about exactly who in the Reagan "Administration" assisted him in his attempted genocide of the Kurds. He has information on the Bush family that Michael Moore would give up his left nut to put in that documentary of his. I'll also lay you odds that there's an October Surprise in there as well, explaining why the Coalition forces stopped in 1991 instead of going after him.

 

He's never going to get the chance to tell those secrets either. The Junta cannot afford to do the right thing and put him in front of the World Court on war crimes and attempted genocide charges. He'd blow the whole image of Bush the Conquering Hero, even though a majority of people in the US aren't buying that image now either. He's gonna be found dead within a month. It'll be a "suicide", with him despondent over the situation and the deaths of his sons. Aw, poor Saddam, he just couldn't take life anymore. His lifespan is now directly linked to Dubbaya's approval ratings. The moment they drop, so does he.

 

If not that, they'll find some other hole for him and treat him like Rudolf Hess. Maybe, just maybe, Fox News will get leaked a statement from him given under interrogation about his connections to bin Laden, which will be a total fabriciation designed to make the Junta look like they made the right decision.

 

From this moment on, people, don't believe anything you hear about what Saddam might have said. It will be lies, just like WMDs were. You want the truth? Demand the truth, in a court of international law.

 

The link

 

Nothing unexpected.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

And for the far left point of view, we now turn you over to Eric Szulczewski's BlackLog at 411:

 

Big deal.

 

So they got Saddam. Where are the WMDs you promised us, Dubbaya? Where's bin Laden? Where are the guys who keep blowing up our troops because they're an unwelcome occupying force?

 

What they got was a 66-year-old guy who was on the wrong side of a vendetta, who's perfectly harmless except to one group of people: the Junta. He has information inside of his head about exactly who in the Reagan "Administration" assisted him in his attempted genocide of the Kurds. He has information on the Bush family that Michael Moore would give up his left nut to put in that documentary of his. I'll also lay you odds that there's an October Surprise in there as well, explaining why the Coalition forces stopped in 1991 instead of going after him.

 

He's never going to get the chance to tell those secrets either. The Junta cannot afford to do the right thing and put him in front of the World Court on war crimes and attempted genocide charges. He'd blow the whole image of Bush the Conquering Hero, even though a majority of people in the US aren't buying that image now either. He's gonna be found dead within a month. It'll be a "suicide", with him despondent over the situation and the deaths of his sons. Aw, poor Saddam, he just couldn't take life anymore. His lifespan is now directly linked to Dubbaya's approval ratings. The moment they drop, so does he.

 

If not that, they'll find some other hole for him and treat him like Rudolf Hess. Maybe, just maybe, Fox News will get leaked a statement from him given under interrogation about his connections to bin Laden, which will be a total fabriciation designed to make the Junta look like they made the right decision.

 

From this moment on, people, don't believe anything you hear about what Saddam might have said. It will be lies, just like WMDs were. You want the truth? Demand the truth, in a court of international law.

 

The link

 

Nothing unexpected.

Please don't bring that moron's point of view into this. If Gore had done it he would still be cleaning the mess up in his pants.

[CanadianChris 0]

This new-fangled "one casualty is too many" approach to military engagement never ceases to amaze me.

 

We lost 441 soldiers from the whole Iraq conflict last time I checked.

If you go to war, you have to expect casualties. You can't expect the enemy to roll over and play dead when you roll in, no matter how big and bad your army is. 441 is an incredibly small number, especially when compared to the 60,000 lost in Vietnam, the 24,000 lost in Korea, and the 400,000 lost in World War II.

 

The fact of the matter is that the longer we stay in Iraq, the more it will become another Vietnam.

America lost nearly 60,000 soldiers in Vietnam. If they lose even 5% of that number in Iraq, I will be shocked (and awed). There is no chance that Iraq will become another Vietnam.

[Guest Cerebus]

Who is Eric Szulczewski and why do I care?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

This new-fangled "one casualty is too many" approach to military engagement never ceases to amaze me.

 

We lost 441 soldiers from the whole Iraq conflict last time I checked. The fact of the matter is that the longer we stay in Iraq, the more it will become another Vietnam.

441 dead in almost 8 months is almost unheard of in the history of military comflicts. Once it starts getting in the 3-5 THOUSAND range start talking about it's not going well.

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA..

 

First of all, 15,000 american soldiers died in Vietnam in 1968 ALONE. The peace movement of the 60's was the result of those mass numbers of people dying. Nearly 6,000 in '66, 10,000 in 1967 and 1969. The protestors in the 60's had a valid fucking reason for protesting, and anything that happens in the next few months in Iraq is nothing.

 

Secondly, "comflict".

Blasted "M" and "N" keys being next to each other.