Saddam Hussein 'arrested in Iraq'

Remove all ads!

@ Tal (boy, I'm going to get in trouble for being contrary to an admin, but here goes...)

I don't think it's fair to say that Saddam is public enemy #1 in America. I speak not only for myself but for the many people who I've asked this very question to in the past couple of days:

"If given the choice between Saddam and Osoma bin Laden, who would you preferred to see captured?"

Overwhelmingly the answer is Osoma bin Laden.

Simply put, other than being gernerally annoying, Saddam hasn't done anything to the U.S. While many people of the U.S. believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, everyone believes that it was masterminded by bin Laden.

To respond to your other comment - they didn't have any of Saddam's DNA to compare the test results. However, they did have many of his family members' DNA, which is pretty much just as good. Knowing the relationships between the people in question and comparing DNA is a good way of getting a match (kind of the same theory they use for paternity tests).

 

Both really. Since Saddam is captured, the one and only issue, that was being used successfully by Bush's opponants, was basically destroyed.

Those who want to replace Bush in the Whitehouse were making some headway by criticizing the failure to capture Saddam Hussein. The argument boiled down to the accussation that the Iraq part of the War on Terror was not well planned and poorly executed.

Now that Saddam is captured, the main reason that people thought this, is really now longer an issue.

The U.S. economy is rebounding currently - so the other hot issue is also quite null.

I realize sentimate is quite diverse across the globe. The arguments of an "illegal war", simply do not reverberate with Americans. From our perspective, the U.N. is incompetent and impotent, and someone had to step up.

I don't think Bush needs Osama either to win reelection. However, Osama is a far bigger monster in the eyes of America than Saddam.

That is sad. Sad, but true. However, Saddam did give money to the terrorists in Palenstein. For that reason alone the war is justified.

 

Well done, America. You got the bastard. I hope that this will have the effects on global terrorism that you intended, and that you can soon bring your boys and girls in the military safely home.

 

So... I assume that all you who make wild allegations about the war against Iraq being illegal are now going to lobby to have Saddam restored to power, right?

It would be hypocritical of you to do otherwise.

 

@ Blackhawk

Thanks for the support. I totally agree that the average American views bin Laden as a much greater threat the Saddam. (Well obviously they do now that Saddam is captured - but even before this.) This is simply because bin Laden poses a greater threat. A very good arguement can be made that bin Laden is really no worse off now than he was before 9/11. If anything, throngs of fanatics have flocked to support him.

Also, Bush's re-election is almost a certainty. As I've said before, the leading indicator of whether or not a president gets re-elected is the state of the economy. The economy is definitely improving, and while the final verdict won't be known for a few months yet, all indications say the economic downturn is over. Let's put it this way - even if the election were to occur TODAY (actually, let's use last week - before Saddam's capture) Bush would have won over any of the democratic hopefuls.

 

Its a War on Terrorism - not a War on Bin Laden.

 

@ Velve Zauviir

I know the odds were overwhelming, but still. To give up like that is kinda anti-climactic. Especially for all the talk he was before we kicked his arse. Oh well. Maybe Osama will be found in a more exciting place, like New York City or hahaha
Paris. That would be hilarious. A Mid-East Roman Polanski.

 

I can't use logic to defend the illogical - and by that I mean Bush's logic. Your assumption is true Tal - if Osoma is the bigger threat why are there about 20,000 U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, but about 130,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq? I don't know and Bush has not adequately explained himself. Why did we send any of those soldiers to Iraq in the first place - I certainly don't know that either.

I cannot give you hard data in the sense that I have not conducted a poll using scientific data collection methods, and so I certainly may be making a wrong assumption based on sampling error. What I do know is that the vast majority of people I talk to - and this is mostly people in the military - view Osoma as the greater threat. The thinking is that Hussein needed to be in power to be a treat, so that once he was deposed, he could no longer constitute such a threat. Bin Laden, on the other hand, never needed to be in a position where he was ruler of a nation, and as such, was viewed as a threat so long as he was on the loose.

Nevertheless, you are correct, I don't have the data to backup my assertion. I'd love to see some of the polls you've seen, because I haven't up to this point. Let me revise my previous assertion. The majority of people based in the area of Maryland in which I live, and who have discussed this topic with me view bin Laden as the greater threat.

 

Blackhawk-

What the hell are you talking about?

Here is a short, incomplete list of issues that the Unelected Fraud has to answer for:

1)Where's Osama?
2)Why have the Taliban regained strength in Afganistan?
3)Where are the weapons of mass destruction that you used to rationalize the Iraqi War?
4)How is it that you so woefully underestimated the determination of the enemy and the cost (both in lives and money) of rebuilding Iraq?
5)How do you intend to recreate the jobs lost under your watch beyond highly irresponsible tax cuts that serve only as a temporary solution?
6)Why did you lie about who recieved the bulk of the tax cuts?
7)When and how do you plan on balancing the budget?
8)When will we see a resolution to the Plame scandal?
9)How do you explain your recent pandering to China over the Taiwan issue?
10)How do you explain your recent pandering to hispanics over the illegals issue?
11)How do you plan to restore our world image after you single-handedly destroyed it?
12)Why have you not forced Dick Cheney to resign even though there is a clear conflict of interest relating to his position and the money Halliburton is raking in from this war?
13)Do you plan on actually trying to solve problems in the Middle East or were you just planning on naming the non-existent effort "the Roadmap to Peace" and hoping that would be enough?
14)Why did you sign medicare reform that screws seniors over?
15)Bring em' on? How stupid are you?

The list goes on.

And this is a little off-topic, but I'd like to juxtapose two Bush quotes about Osama Bin Laden:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number-one priority and we will not rest until we find him." 9-13-01

"I don't know where [Osama] is and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." 3-13-02

 

Well, I don't normally post here in AoDA, but I noticed all of the posts here reflect only one side of an American viewpoint. I hold the other.

First off....I guess I'm glad that Saddam has been captured, even though his crimes of brutality and killing his own were no more grievous that any other leader of a militaristic country. He committed no crimes toward the US, yet we violate UN policy and make an unprecedented invasion of a country in the name of saving the world from evil--which was nothing more than an oil bonanza and the capture of a scapegoat to pacify Americans for the inability to capture Osama bin Laden. It's really quite pathetic if you think about it.

Oh and btw... I happened to catch the press conference this morning, with the typical "the messiah has come-and it's me!" rehtoric And when he recovered from his delusions, he happened to mention that he was also saving the Phillipines too (albeit convertly at the moment). I wonder if they'll be next on the list. What's the price of coffins lately, does anyone know? It's all very sad.

 

Shralp,
you demand that we are consequent after the capture of Saddam? Well, Saddam, the man who illegally invaded Kuwait, should be punished for that accordingly, just as for his undisputed Crimes against Humanity.

Consequently I would like to see the same punishment Saddam would get for invating Kuwait and Iran for Bush (and Blair) too. Just like Saddam, Bush committed a crime the US hanged people for in Nuremberg - the supreme crime - War of Agression, recently and euphemistically dubbed "War of Choice" in the US. That's nothing to be taken lightly, and maybe that's something you should recall once in a while.

No one here has ever said Saddam did not deserve to be deposed. It's clearly about the *how*. The ends don't justify the means just because you happen to be the US and well, felt like it.

 

Shralp, as I said before, just because people were against the war against Iraq doesnt mean they were for Saddam. I am pretty sure that neigh on everyone who opposed the war wanted Saddam gone. We just thought there were better ways to do it.

 

It is a War on Terrorism.

Not all terrorists (or sympathizers) are equal in depravity. All are at war with the United States.

Iraq is just one piece of it. Afganistan is just one piece of it. There will be many, many more pieces to this puzzle.


@ InquisitorX

I agree with you on many points. I'm liberal too (more moderate than leftist though).

I am simply a pragmatist. Many of the topics you mentioned are valid points to criticize and are certainly campaign issues. Unfortunately, the only item above that carries any weight is the "where the @%^$& are the WMDs".

The truth be told, Bush will be reelected. We have lost this presidential bid. Dean cannot win. Clark might be able too.

 

Ooh...I can't resist...PLEASE don't take this as a personal attack!

1)Where's Osama?

Who knows? Maybe we'll find him holed up like Hussein, or maybe we'll never find him. What matters is that the US has stripped away his money, his men, and his materiel. It's a war on terror generally, not bin Laden personally. If we can catch him, wonderful; if not, at least we've paralyzed him.

2)Why have the Taliban regained strength in Afganistan?

By what benchmark? They've lost their stranglehold on the state - Karzai has Kabul well in hand, the warlords are gradually submitting to his leadership, and the Afghan constitution is nearing completion. The Taliban are still around, but they're limited to the rough regions along Pakistan's border - and when they come out to attack, they get wiped out.

3)Where are the weapons of mass destruction that you used to rationalize the Iraqi War?

Let's ask Hussein, given that WMD was the way that HE rationalized the war. He could've evaded war at any time by fully submitting to the UN resolutions and weapons inspectorate. Clearly Hussein thought his WMD - real or imaginary - were worth a war.

4)How is it that you so woefully underestimated the determination of the enemy and the cost (both in lives and money) of rebuilding Iraq?

Underestimated, by what standard? There was no refugee crisis, no mass starvation, no ethnic/religious cleansing, no environmental scorched earth, no WMD use, no attacks on Israel, no massive losses of American lives... The US won the war VERY cheaply, and continues to hold Iraq cheaply.

5)How do you intend to recreate the jobs lost under your watch beyond highly irresponsible tax cuts that serve only as a temporary solution?

Probably by lowering taxes even further. The alternative is to raise taxes on those who have jobs to subsidize those who don't.

6)Why did you lie about who recieved the bulk of the tax cuts?

Both sides used correct figures. Suppose we give someone paying $1,000,000 in taxes a 5% cut, and another fella paying $10,000 a 50% cut. The millionaire saves $50,000; the other fella saves just $5,000. The first guy gets the "bulk" of the tax cuts, but the other guy is affected more. So there's no lying involved - one side pointed (correctly) to the absolute numbers, the other to the percentages.

7)When and how do you plan on balancing the budget?

The sooner the better! (I don't even use credit cards, I'm so debt-averse.) But there are two solutions - we can take the EU tack and cut spending and raise taxes to meet the 3% requirement; or, we can use tax cuts to grow our way out of the deficit. Compare France and the US and draw your own conclusions.

8)When will we see a resolution to the Plame scandal?

Heads will roll!

9)How do you explain your recent pandering to China over the Taiwan issue?

Because Taiwan is threatening to slip its American leash, and it needs to be reined in before it jumps over the cliff.

10)How do you explain your recent pandering to hispanics over the illegals issue?

Full legal immigration for everyone! (Oh, wait, that's my opinion, not Bush's.) He is the first president that speaks Spanish...

11)How do you plan to restore our world image after you single-handedly destroyed it?

Maybe our world image will be sufficiently restored once we've single-handedly saved it from the Axis of Evil.

12)Why have you not forced Dick Cheney to resign even though there is a clear conflict of interest relating to his position and the money Halliburton is raking in from this war?

Because Cheney isn't making any money from Halliburton - he resigned his position, and his stock is kept in a blind trust. Besides, Halliburton is hardly making that much money - the Iraq reconstruction added, what, a quarter-cent to its latest stock dividend? And lawsuits could ruin that in a moment - which Cheney well understands, given Halliburton's exposure to asbestos claims after acquiring a separate company.

13)Do you plan on actually trying to solve problems in the Middle East or were you just planning on naming the non-existent effort "the Roadmap to Peace" and hoping that would be enough?

I think that Bush's real "roadmap to peace" is a highway connecting Tehran to Istanbul through Baghdad and Damascus.

14)Why did you sign medicare reform that screws seniors over?

Maybe because the AARP endorsed it.

15)Bring em' on? How stupid are you?

Judging from the enemy body count, it looks like the tactic is working so far.

 

Therefore, Hitler is innocent of WWII. It's Poland that is guilty. Poland could have handed over Gdansk, allowed extraterritorial autoroute to East Prussia and joined the Anticomintern Pact. Poland didn't. So Poland clearly deserved what happened. Therefore, UK and France were aggressors when they declared war on Hitler. Czechoslovakia, however, was wiser and handed over half the land from Munich 1938 on. Right?

 

I didn't say that Hussein or the US were innocent of warmongering. My only point was that Hussein, for good or ill, thought that his WMD stocks (real or imaginary) were worth a war. Poland did indeed invite war by not submitting to Hitler's demands, but that's a GOOD thing - war with Hitler was completely justified. And the UK and France WERE aggressors, but thank goodness they were - if only they'd been aggressors earlier, they could've saved Gdansk from Hitler's murderous predations.

Y'know, not that it's connected, but when I play Medieval: Total War, it's as either France or Poland. There's nothing quite so satisfying as wreaking havoc in both hinterland and Holy Land with the mighty Polish Empire.

 

Terrorists are a world blight, not just aimed at Americans, but at people in every country. Iraq is indeed tied to terrorism and is a "piece of it" as you so say. But it isn't up to one country to take it upon itself to make the fix--or one man, whose halo seems to be blinding him a bit.

Afghanistan is the much larger piece. And I can see the fixation that Bush would have with finding bin Laden, purely for revenge alone. But that still eludes him -- and to cover his ineptness at that, he offers up another sacrificial lamb instead.

The point is -- yes, terrorists are bad. Yes they're everywhere. Yes, they should be caught. But in a witch hunt led by one man that affects millions of peoples lives? With Americans doing all the killing? And the poor unlucky souls that have to come home in body bags?? -- all for a so-called piece of the puzzle?

I, in many ways, believe in an eye for an eye -- find bin Laden, bring him to justice or execute him, it makes no difference. (We execute people here for less every day.) But don't go off on a smoke screen rouse, capturing a high profile scapegoat and expect the rest of us to be appeased.