Saddam Caught? - Page 2

Ouch. Good one Cap.

If I quoted how many times I read "Oh and where are Sadaam and Osama?" like it was an IMPORTANT (at least for all appearances) matter to those people asking it here in the Politics forum, I would at least fill up an entire page.

Granted it doesn't mean the end of the War on Terror but I am SEVERELY disappointed that many of you who asked "where is Sadaam" are now just as quickly dismissing it like it didn't matter anyways.

It's like Matt said essentially, "what's the point?"

Kudos to Agent Orange and Gandalf's Father for being an exception to this. I know you still disagree with most of all that has transpired in this but at least you offered congratulations and a positive statement before mentioning your reservations about the matter. I know it doesn't mean a lot to you that I say this but either way I am impressed.

And elsewhere...I'm disappointed (another thing I know that doesn't mean much to people around here)...

Why are we required to be congratulatory here?

And I'm sorry, CaptainAmerica, if I impugned your oft-declared concern for the world's downtrodden. I must have missed all those posts of yours concerning them...

And please, feel free to find ANY SINGLE POST OF MINE where I harp about Saddam not being captured.

You guys should just go ahead and hang up that "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner you like so much...

Way to not deal with any of my points there Chris...

I have never been a supporter of the war in Iraq. Finding Saddam was never a make or break for me in any of the posts I've made on the subject. My view all along has been that the US should have finished what it started in Afghanistan FIRST before any other country was looked at as an invasion target.

But hey, thanks for marginalizing me!

Ouch. Good one, Ludwig.

I see you are running for asshole of the year award.

My views on this have always been consistent, yet in your little world view, a persons life and personal expiriences are all captured in the CHUD message forums.

Why wouldn't I symphatize with this? I had to grow up without living with my parents because of a dictatorship. FUCK YOU!

I typed that up before I saw your post Mike...

Because nothing says you care about the downtrodden in Iraq like wishing for 20 more years under dictatorial rule!

And I'm supposed to be aware of this HOW, exactly?

What the bloody hell are you talking about?

And I would also argue that catching Osama would be HUGE, as he has much more influence in the terrorist world stage than Saddam could have ever hoped to have. Handled correctly, capturing and interrogating Osama would help stop terrorism, like really deal their ability to organize and get funded a blow.

My list of countries that should have been dealt with or had pressure put on them would have been:

1. Afghanistan.
2. Pakistan.
3. Saudi Arabia.

Iraq was a non-player with regards to supporting terrorists. They never have been a player per se with regards to America.

And the hatred of Bush shows no end. Hatred of Clinton did not defeat Clinton and it won't work with Bus either.

And this is a big deal. Many Iraqi's believed Saddam would return to power or that the U.S. had Saddam hidden or some other conspiracy theory. Now they can see with their own eyes Saddam will NEVER come back.

I will be convinced that removing Saddam as the leader of Iraq was a good idea in no less than ten years from now when we see how this all turns out, Matt. My fear is that someone as bad or worse will eventually rise to power once the US pulls out. I hope I am wrong. But honestly, how can you be happy about this when there were other countries much worse off than Iraq in terms of brutal rulership that could have been first before Saddam was taken out?

I've actually hinted at it in other posts, but that's the point. Think about it next time you paint my motivations with your limited world view of Republicans vs Democrats, and neo-cons vs whatever.

We all have different motivations, and when you say I don't care about other countries under similar situation is a bunch of bullshit that you say because of your limited view.

I have no problems with people that are anti-war, specially this war. They make great and valid points, many that I agree, many others that I disagree. I totally respect the opinion of those who think "it's not worth it" in American lives. What do you say to those parents?

I didn't have a relative in the war, but did have the son of our best man, and I had problems sleeping. His dad of course was worse. I can't barely imagine what a mother goes through.

I also have my opinions and they are shaped by my life experiences, but don't come here with your neo-con (a useless term) you guys never cared before bullshit. Don't generalize and deal with what is posted.

Yo don't want to celebrate, that's fine, I'm not going to guess at your motivations. Don't try to wrongly guess mines with insipid insults.

Bush has very little to do with any of this in the end. I don't support him, but don't write off people's misgivings about Iraq as nothing more than anti-Bushism. There is so much more going on here, and very little of it involves the man directly.

Can I make one point extremely clear, please?

I'm GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS BEEN CAPTURED!

He was, in fact, a brutal dictator, and I'm happy he has been captured. Ok? Can we be clear on that?

But some folks in here seem to think everyone is supposed to be holding hands and thanking Bush/Jesus or something, and I disagree. I don't think it's been a just war. I don't thing the civilian or military deaths have been justified. I do not think Saddam alone was worth all this bloodshed. I'd think the same thing if Clinton, Gore or Peter fucking Jackson were President.

CaptainAmerica, I'm sorry if you took offense at what I said. You haven't posted here much, and I'm not familiar with you or your background. Mea Culpa.

Because no matter what you say or how you spin it:

If we had not acted the Iraqi people would still be living under Saddam. And after his death? His sons!

So when you boil it down to it's most basic, you were for Hussein remaining in power to kill as many innocent Iraqis as he wanted. Whenever he wanted. I know you might not see it that way, but it's just a fact. If we had gone with your way, Saddam would still be in power. No question.


That's all I'm sayin'.

But that's neither here nor there.

On a tip from another conservative on the web,I'm gonna go listen to The Ace of Spades by Lemmy and the Boys. Or maybe some Down in a Hole by Alice.

Me too.

BTW: It all makes for very good television.

Thus my Pledge numbers are already down this morning. Thank You Donald Rumsfeld.

So when you boil it down to it's most basic, you were for Hussein remaining in power to kill as many innocent Iraqis as he wanted. Whenever he wanted. I know you might not see it that way, but it's just a fact. If we had gone with your way, Saddam would still be in power. No question.

But Matt, there are dozens of other countries with similar rulers where innocents are suffering. Why Iraq? Why did they get to be "first" in terms of being "liberated"? Again, the end doesn't even come close to justifying the means. ANd my guess is that once Iraq has settled down and become loyal consumers, the US war on terror will be over. You've already stopped sending money to Afghanistan. But hey, Iraq was a bigger supporter of terrorism in the end, right? Right Matt?

Wow, way to add to the discussion there Rob!

Well, right.

So you woulda been cooler with going after Saddam if we had started with North Korea? I fail to see the point. If we dispose of dictators one at a time,starting with Saddam what's the problem?

Because you're mad if you think this stops in Iraq.


Like I said. If we had gone your way, those pesky thirdworlders would still be an abstract "issue" for you to go after George W. Bush with. Instead you see them dancing in the streets after seeing their living nightmare in custody once and for all.

That's gotta hurt a little.

A nice little Churchill quote I just read:

“This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning"

It's this simple: it needed to be done, and it was doable.

But it's not as if they just forgot about Bin Laden and decided to go for the easier target.

I'm glad they captured him, that's a good thing, it's a small victory in a much war that is still being waged - granted this war on terrorism is not all over the news as is the case with Iraq (which really is a good thing), but be it a small or large operation we are at war 24/7, ask just about anyone in the armed forces, they'll tell you that.

So you woulda been cooler with going after Saddam if we had started with North Korea? I fail to see the point. If we dispose of dictators one at a time,starting with Saddam what's the problem?

Because you're mad if you think this stops in Iraq.


Like I said. If we had gone your way, those pesky thirdworlders would still be an abstract "issue" for you to go after George W. Bush with. Instead you see them dancing in the streets after seeing their living nightmare in custody once and for all.

Not North Korea, no. There are many messes in Africa that need cleaning first.

But remember, the whole point of all of this mobilization in the first place was to wage a war on terror, and so far, only one terrorist supporting nation has been targeted, and ineffectively at that.

And of course this stops after Iraq. You have run out of money Matt! No politician, no matter how gifted, will be able to convince Congress/ the American people that spending another 100 billion on another war is going to be a good thing no matter how noble the intentions. It ends in Iraq, mark my words.

And please don't turn this into an anti-Bush arguement. I could give two shits about the man or his policies because it took more than him to start this war in the first place. I am reserving my final judgement on how this is oing to turn out for the people in Iraq until after the US leaves. My gut is telling me it will be worse than ever before.

It's this simple: it needed to be done, and it was doable.

Please. With the money and troops used in this "war", you could have cleaned up every abberant government in continental Africa!!! Do you know how many millions would have been singing your priases then?? I think people have to ask themelves tougher questions on why Iraq was first, honestly.

So if Saddam being a brutal dictator killing his own people is justification enough to go in after him, why is Castro still strolling around Havana at will? He's a lot closer than Iraq.

whoops. highlighted the wrong quote.

No I don't, Matt, please enlighten me! There are many instances of dictatorships, brutal regimes or governments in danger of becoming suporters of terrorists because of lack of funding all over Africa. Had the US decided to tackle those issues instead of Iraq, I would have been a believer!

Which quote didn't I honestly believe then Matt?

And the trial for this has the potential to expose a lot of embarassing information for the US, European countries and others.

Because Kennedy fucked that one up already. He had his shot and backed out. You can't blame Bush for every dictator in power.

This just makes me hate Bush even more. Yeah, we captured Sadam, ok, now if only we could get the guy that actually hurt our country that'd be swell. We did a half-ass job in Afghanistan and for no other reason other than a quick excuse we go to Iraq to "liberate" them. Can anyone tell me why we really went in the first place? Honestly? Was it because we were afraid of them? Every UN inspector that went in there concluded that it was a deteriorating third world country that was incapable of doing damage to anyone. It was dying. So like what most jackasses would do, he hit the beehive with a log, and postponed the inevitable, killing thousands along the way.

I agree we should've gone after Osama, but that's it, just the guy that attacked us. Why more people didn't protest is beyond me. This is sick, what we are doing. At least we could've waited for the UN to help us attack Iraq so the whole world wouldn't hate us right now.

Because Kennedy fucked that one up already. He had his shot and backed out. You can't blame Bush for every dictator in power.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! So what, Bush was incapable of righting this wrong because there's a rule that says "You only get one shot!!!" ??!? You're pretty funny.

Cuba is going to crumble all by itself, plus it's a totally different story. Unfortunately for the Cubans, Fidelito's family has a history of living very long years, but he should be done soon by now.

In the meantime, we should get rid of those useless sanctions, but alas, that's another story for another time.

So you WOULDN'T go after Bush if he took Castro out? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You would be one of the first ones on the board whining and crying.

This was the quote.

I really don't think you know the sheer amount of manpower and cash you're talking about here. I certainly can't begin to comprehend it. It's a number beyond belief. All the corrupt, insanely run, brutal dictatorships on that continent could just be "cleaned up" with some good old American handouts? Rubbish.


We may yet deal with some of these madmen. But until we do I guess we'll simply have to be happy for the moment for doing away with the one who killed (by latest estmates) about 300,00 of his own people. I now Saddam is the uncool dictator to go after, but we'll just have to make do.

Political interests aside, I would like to say that I hope this helps to give the Iraqi people the shot in the arm of confidence that they need to become a truly independant, prosperous, and democratic nation.

"Hours after the arrest, a suspected suicide car bomber killed at least 17 people and wounding 33 at an Iraqi police station in the restive town of Khalidiyah, west of Baghdad." -- AP report

Chirac is consulting his lawyer as we speak.

True. This is actually what the popular opinion (of military insiders) is, on how to "defeat" other "hotspots" and "former hotspots" like Iran, who has a lot of young people who are getting sick of Ayatollah (sp?) rule, or China, who is quickly becoming the only "capitalist" communist country. (Anyone see that Wild on in Beijing, with the huge amount of super nice nightclubs and so on?)

Bush just said:

The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq.”


I want this to be a reference point for those who will inevitably (and falsely) say that Bush said the war was over and all is well.

But you WERE for bombing the hell out of them when a Democratic president was in office claiming he was a horrible little man that had weapons of mass destruction. I don't get you people, do you honestly think nobody remembers the lack of shouting and protesting when Clinton did what Bush is doing? (granted, Clinton didn't go quite as far, just enough to take the heat off of his many scandals) What, so Saddam immediately destroyed every WMD (now, don't say he never had them to begin with because the UN didn't spend all those years there because they liked the weather), stopped killing and raping men, women, children and babies and doing all sorts of mean and nasty things the very day Bush was elected to office? I don't think so.
Look, just say you hate Bush and leave it at that. If Gore had been elected (and if CNN can admit he wasn't elected so can you) and was doing the same thing you guys would not utter a single fucking peep.

Saddam's rat hole according to Univision.




ABC: Possible car bomb in center of Baghdad ...

All the corrupt, insanely run, brutal dictatorships on that continent could just be "cleaned up" with some good old American handouts? Rubbish.

Not handouts. Military action, followed by infrastructure development. You have to realize that many of these countries have nowhere near any kind of organized military that could stand in the face of the money/troops used in Iraq. Sure there are some, but what most of these countries lack is organization and the funding to resist the US should the US decide to do something about them. So yes, I think that would have been a better goal to pursue. In the end, it would have costed more money, but over a way longer period of time.

If Gore was doing was Bush is doing now, many of the Reps would be isolationinsts, while many of the Dems would be for liberation (or intervention). Funny how American politics is.

So you WOULDN'T go after Bush if he took Castro out? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You would be one of the first ones on the board whining and crying.

Nope. Castro needs to go.

And I agree.

Others here though....don't which is sad.

Agreed. Unfortunately time will have to take care of this guy for us.

But we know he doesn't have insane kids waiting in the wings. Castro dies, and I'm comfortable with saying communist rule ends when he ends.


And so much for Saddam exulting his followers to become martyrs for the cause when he himself is taken without a single shot fired in defense. Pathetic, evil,old man.