Saddam Hussein Captured Alive

Page: 1 2 3 4
Dec 14 2003, 12:15 pm
I want his signature! I want it to sell on EBay and try to make mucho dinero!!!

w00t
~wolf01

[EDIT] BEFORE THEY KILL HIM!
Dec 14 2003, 12:39 pm
In response to Hedgemistress
Hedgemistress wrote:
Saddam was a public figure, we knew (more or less) where he was... Osama's a guerilla leader. Saddam had a nation we could declare war on, Osama has an increasingly underground organization spread thinner than paper throughout much of the world. Faced with two enemies the public equally hates, Bush picked the easier target.

I don't think Bush chose one over the other. I think part of the divide between supporters and detractors of the war in Iraq is that its detractors tend to view the "War on Terrorism" as a cynical, resource-burning propaganda piece akin to the "War on Drugs", whereas the supporters (of which I'm one) see it as a literal war, to which the habits and assumptions of peacetime diplomacy are as inappropriate as, say, trying to dissuade an armed rapist by asking him sympathetic questions about his unhappy childhood.

According to this view, both the welfare of the citizens of Iraq and the potential of arresting WMD development are components of a larger package. Other components include:

* Demonstrating to all regimes that might have a hand in terrorism that the United States, contrary to past appearances, has not become a paper tiger and will not countenance sponsors of terrorism. The exact relationship of Saddam Hussein to terrorism has yet to be determined (though I think it's pretty well established that he at least offered rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers); but if there's no clear relationship, then that makes America all the more frightening, because it means America will act if it even thinks you're supporting terrorism.

* Shaming the proponents of theocratic fascism (because shame, not death, is what the terrorists fear) by creating, right in the heart of the Middle East and the cradle of civilization, a prosperous liberal democracy to serve as the Arabic world's counterpart to Israel. I don't deny that this is an ambitious goal and fraught with many risks. But if it succeeds, Iraq will be the model to which all other Middle Eastern nations (or more precisely, their citizens) aspire.

The invasion of Iraq may seem a cruel and brutish tactic to achieve these ends; particularly so, if one has the luxury of not comparing it to the casualties of any past wars. But it is a model of restraint compared to what will happen to the Middle East if the terrorists persist in their optimism and one or two more major attacks succeed in America.


I think it's pretty clear what happened... Saddam, a shifty opportunist, had disarmed long ago but was hedging his bets by resisting arms inspectors and avoiding providing evidence of either weapons or their destruction. Why? He wanted to be safe from both sets of enemies... the western world would be kept at bay because they couldn't prove he had WMD.... his closer neighbors and oppressed subjects would behave because they couldn't prove that he didn't.

That sounds plausible. Whatever the case may be, I suspect that the truth about the fate of Saddam's WMD will come out sooner or later. My own suspicion is that the WMD claims will be vindicated to some degree, but I've been wrong before.
Dec 14 2003, 12:40 pm
In response to Jon88
Jon88 wrote:
Islamic fundamentalists are not the enemy. Terrorists are the enemy. It's just that a number of them try to pass themselves off as such.

We're not fighting people in this war, we're fighting a religion.
Dec 14 2003, 12:48 pm
In response to Cryptic
Hey its not saddam! its actually Mendeleeve the guy who made the periodic table of elements saddam is in antartica chilling with the pinguins I was there! I saw him! Dude what next are they going to find Hitler!?
Dec 14 2003, 12:55 pm
In response to FenrirXIII
True, and I'm voting REPUBLICAN, so if Bush is the leading candidate, than I'm voting Bush. (Perhaps if the Libretarian party could make a better show, I might vote that way....)

But honostly Sir. You yourself are only perpetuating propaganda.

"I seriously have a small spot of worry /pity for Saddam, because he was targeted falsely by Bush, soley for Bush's image as a 'terrorism fighter'...Its Ironic, because one 'big man' was taken down by another 'big man'..."

They lack evidence for taking down Saddam and Iraq, thats nothing new, and was expected before the war began. But to say that Saddam was targeted falsly..? Are you trying to create and illusion in your own mind that he was "not such a bad guy?" Perhaps we should give hm another chance, I mean its not like Saddam killed hundereds of thousands of men, women and children. And Saddam, being the guy he is, would never try and invade another country or use biological weapons on them...or even on us. Perhaps we should instead go after Canada? They don't bother trying to resolves their issues with use of marijuana....besides, its better to go after these petty "drug lords" than a genocide king.

(as a side note on the idea of politics....liberalism is an annoyance that must be crushed...with out furtherado, flame away)

~Cryptic
Dec 14 2003, 12:56 pm
In response to Darkfirewolf5
Dec 14 2003, 12:56 pm
In response to Cryptic
You're fighting people who happen to be Islamic, and a number of them try to pass off what they do as religious. There ARE non-islamic terrorists in the world. What you're doing is stereotyping. Of course, with terrorism, fighting the people doesn't work nearly as well as fighting the idea of terrorism. Making terrorism and war not make sense to the next generation would be far more effective than simply trying, and failing, to root out every terrorist out there.
Dec 14 2003, 1:05 pm
In response to Cryptic
It's not like the United States of America were the ones who GAVE him said weapons in the first place.

I also resent the fact that you seem to be referring to all canadians as "petty drug lords". The canadian government is trying to help people addicted to marijuana just like helping people addicted to tobacco. Just because a problem is being dealt with in a different way than the US is dealing with it, doesn't make it automatically incorrect, or bad.

There are lots of banned substances out there, that are banned, not because of being harmful to the human body(or at least moreso than tobacco or alcohal), but because they're psychoactive.
Dec 14 2003, 1:12 pm
In response to Jon88
I'm going a little off topic here, but substances aren't banned just for being psychoactive. It's said that marijuana was banned because Chinese and Japanese laborers working on railroads used it to keep interest in their simple jobs, which slowly caused a growing Chinese and Japanese work force. The rich caucasian American citizens saw this and decided to throw up a law banning the use of Marijuana and Opium(I believe those were the only two drugs at the time being used to help increase work ability.). Just like when cocaine got banned, African American work groups were using it to help them work harder. There were some posters from that time warning about cocaine making a single African American male as powerful as 5 police officers. Of course I'm totally against cocaine, but I have yet to see many bad things about marijuana, even the FDCA supports the idea of legalizing it and illegalizing cigarettes. If the banning of susbtances because of their hallucinogenic/psychoactive properties was the only reason for banning a drug, then Salvia would of been gone long ago.

Salvia, for those of you who don't know, is an plant that can be smoked or used to brew tea, when it is inhaled/consumed the user begins experiencing extreme hallucinations and it causes the effect of being "high" just the same as marijuana. The drug can be used up to a point where it will knock the user out for a few hours and they will wake up with no memory of what happened. Yet, you can be younger than 18 to buy this in some states....
Dec 14 2003, 1:17 pm
In response to Gughunter
Dec 14 2003, 1:45 pm
In response to Darkfirewolf5
Uh-oh... there's someone who disagrees with you!

http://www.kedrosky.com/ig/archives/000128.html#000128
Dec 14 2003, 1:50 pm
In response to Deadron
The final point to consider is this: the topic we're discussing here is if you see the need to get somebody out of power for the greater good, is it okay to do the expedient thing and exaggerate certains ills or dangers in order to galvanize a response against that person?

Bush's more vocal critics wanted him out of office long before March, for reasons having nothing to do with Iraq, but they've ceased upon it and are trying to make it work for them... sadly, most in the reprehensible ways you've cited, which strikes a resonant chord with the people who are already anti-Bush but mostly makes him look more sympathetic to people on the fence. Still, it's as much their right to take the facts and spin them in a way that benefits their goal as it was Bush's.

That's not to say Bush's evils rank within ballistic missile distance of those of Saddam's, but neither is it to compare impeachment or being voted out to a decapitation strike via patriot missiles.

Your final statement, I agree with wholeheartedly... I think the world (naturally including us) should've done something concrete about the Taliban a long time ago. There's a difference between "not interfering with the lawful political process of a sovereign state" and "letting a bunch of quasireligious maniacs forcibly take their people back to the stone age amidst much letting of blood and destruction of people and property." That's the other thing that bothers me about the WMD tact... I think it's distressing that we have to wait until it seems we're imperiled to act. That's got nothing to do with the Bush administration... we weren't in WWII until Pearl Harbor, despite the compelling need, and (I think) we weren't in WWI until the Zimmerman letter came to light.

And allowing Iraq to sell oil again reduces the power of Saudi Arabia, which may allow us to finally stop dealing with *that* set of evil people.

Actually, I'd hope it would allow us to start dealing with them, so to speak. :P
Dec 14 2003, 1:58 pm
In response to Gughunter
that makes America all the more frightening, because it means America will act if it even thinks you're supporting terrorism.

Your reasoning is sound, but I really think that's the kind of fright we could without... yeah, it might encourage other states to very publically cease support of terrorism and take great pains to show that they fight such things... but if we do it too many times, it might also encourage someone to launch their own "self defense" attack because we looked at them funny and they know they have nothing to lose. By the same token, Bush made it clear early on that after the deadline, he would not accept Saddam's surrender... didn't seem to make a difference this time around, but I would not like to see that continue. You say, "zero tolerance," I say, "fight like a cornered animal."

The invasion of Iraq may seem a cruel and brutish tactic to achieve these ends; particularly so, if one has the luxury of not comparing it to the casualties of any past wars.

Unrelated note, but something I wonder if anyone else here has ever thought about... I think the low casualties have a weird psychological effect on people... if one or two people die a day, it's possible to put a face and name (even if it's just a random face that pops into your head when you hear the news) on each and every person who dies, hence the seeming brutality you describe.
Dec 14 2003, 1:59 pm
In response to Deadron
You're both right, in the end something good happened (Deadron), and the start needs to be delt with (Hedgemistress). I really don't see where the disagreement came from.
Dec 14 2003, 2:10 pm
In response to DarkView
Well, I don't really think we have any need to continue explaining our positions to each other, since we've both laid them out quite clearly by the end... but really, if you're asking why this conversation went on so long, it has to do with the fact that we've both got our beliefs articulated to a high degree of precision. If you want to oversimplify things, then yes, we completely agree... or if you oversimplify them the other way, then no, we completely disagree.

Deadron's beliefs are more complicated then, "USA! USA! WOOOOOO! GO TEAM!" and mine are more complicated then, "BUSH IS A BABY KILLER! NO BLOOD FOR OIL!", and both of ours are more complicated then, "HEY HO, SADDAM MUST GO!"

Or, put another way, reality's a complicated place to live in, and we have high-resolution viewpoints. We're neither ignoring the messy, unpleasant facts that don't support our world view, neither are we remaining paralyzed by our awareness of them.
Dec 14 2003, 2:38 pm
In response to Hedgemistress
Hedgemistress wrote:
but if we do it too many times, it might also encourage someone to launch their own "self defense" attack because we looked at them funny and they know they have nothing to lose.

Yes, some of them would get desperate and attack, but the thing is they probably will attack anyway (even if it isn't America).
The key differnce is that you are weakening the attack. When someone is on the ropes they will throw everything they have at you, but they don't have half as much as normal and they don't have the same oppertunities as when they first touch gloves.


Unrelated note, but something I wonder if anyone else here has ever thought about... I think the low casualties have a weird psychological effect on people... if one or two people die a day, it's possible to put a face and name (even if it's just a random face that pops into your head when you hear the news) on each and every person who dies, hence the seeming brutality you describe.

It depends. I think a lot of it comes down to how much footage CNN plays. S11 was horrible, but there have been bigger bads.
CNN played it so much that if you wanted to change the channel and stop paying attention you felt like a monster. Same thing happened with Princess Diana. Live updates every five minutes, just in case the car crash changed.
How "wild" the reports are also plays a big part. If it's obviously been read by the newscaster at least once then it isn't that important. Likewise, even if the guy is telling you "We found the side mirror in the bushes", if he tells you as though he was hearing it for the first time then it has to be a big deal.
Anyway, that's going off your off-topic, I think the more attached you feel the more personal it feels. I don't think attachment is directly proportional to the death toll.
I think if the toll is lower then there is a bigger chance they will show the families, funeral, ect, and those are the money shots.
You see a crying mother, you think about your mother getting that news about you. You see a dead man you think about the men in your life dead.
I think that starts to lose it's effect when you get into bigger numbers, but once it gets into even bigger numbers it comes back worse.
You see the majority of a large crowd crying, at least on some basic level you'll think you should be too.
Dec 14 2003, 3:18 pm
In response to Hedgemistress
Hedgemistress wrote:
Deadron's beliefs are more complicated then, "USA! USA! WOOOOOO! GO TEAM!" and mine are more complicated then, "BUSH IS A BABY KILLER! NO BLOOD FOR OIL!", and both of ours are more complicated then, "HEY HO, SADDAM MUST GO!"

Though I must admit that, as a lifelong Democrat, my disgust with the left is growing so palpable that sometimes I feel like "USA USA!" just to provide some counter-weight. I probably have a skewed perception of how much of the population believes in the worst crap, because I live in a city (and even more precisely, in a neighborhood and on a block) where it is 100% assumed that you buy into this anti-American stuff and if you dare utter the slightest syllable of questioning you are pounced on as a racist/fascist/baby-killer. And I'm not exaggerating...my partner is in politics here and has been called all of those things.

It was odd to see the absolute Clinton-hating of the right...and it's even more disturbing to see the absolute Bush-hating of the left. If we can't look at our leader and decide what we like and what we don't like based on each of their actions, then we cannot make informed decisions when voting or supporting/disputing policies. So the left hates Bush even though, in many ways important to them, he's more "liberal" than Clinton. He spends way more money on social programs (and soon on medical care through drugs for seniors), he is massively increasing the size of the non-military government, he doesn't care about a balanced budget, and he is, at heart, anti-free trade. All things the left wanted more of from Clinton, yet they despise Bush with a frightening intensity.

Myself, after long rejecting it, I'm becoming one of those "where is the party for me?" people. I am thoroughly disgusted with the tyranny-loving, science hating, "America is always wrong" irrational left. Yet I am constitutionally incapable of joining the party that, at least until a few years ago, was actively a part of spewing racist/homophobic/anti-woman hate into our society. I do not believe that either party owns responsible economic policy anymore -- that is up to the individual in office. We've seen Clinton behave economically responsibly (against his party's wishes), and Reagan/Bush II follow the worst case "spend it all and let God work it out" policies anyone ever feared of from the left.

There isn't much available at the moment for those of us who believe in fiscally-sound, free trade-based economic policies, are strongly pro-first amendment and strongly socially liberal, and who support siezing this moment in history and pursuing an unabashedly pro-democracy foreign policy that is willing to take on our enemies when and where it is realistically possible to do so.

Given the current direction of the major parties, I foresee that in a decade or so, the Republicans may morph into the party that makes the most sense for me. Young Republicans today are not, by and large, homophobic/sexist/racist and, I'm starting to sense, tend to accept the values I've mentioned.

Or, perhaps the Howard Deans of the world will lose, and the Democrats will start moving toward a more centrist policy again, and my crisis of political faith will be over for a while.
Dec 14 2003, 3:32 pm
In response to Deadron
Deadron wrote:
I am thoroughly disgusted with the tyranny-loving, science hating, "America is always wrong" irrational left.

Woah, woah, slow down here. Tyranny-loving? Science hating? Since when did you have to have right-leaning politics to be a scientist? Many of the scientists I know of are left-wing environmentalists who, on their spare days, go out on "save the trees" protests and support campaigns against tyrannical governments - although, granted, they usually don't support more direct (read: warlike) methods of deposing those governments. Usually their efforts are more focused towards helping communities; no point taking on the government if you're not properly fed, is there? =)

There isn't much available at the moment for those of us who believe in fiscally-sound, free trade-based economic policies

The Australian PM, John Howard, is (and has been for a while) trying to get a free trade agreement with the US. Which I think is a disasterous idea. Why? Because most US governments who have set up free trade agreements have proceeded to flagrantly violate the terms (usually by continuing to supply heavy subsidies to the relevant industries), while insisting that the other country keep to the terms of the agreement. And they get away with it. Result? The other country's economy is ruined.
Dec 14 2003, 3:34 pm
In response to Hedgemistress
Hedgemistress wrote:
You say, "zero tolerance," I say, "fight like a cornered animal."

Those are legitimate concerns. I certainly don't want America to become the Grand Moff Tarkin of the world, relying on fear to keep everyone in line. What's important is not so much appearing volatile as appearing credible, which is something we've had a problem with for decades. Establishing positive credibility -- rewarding our allies in appropriate ways, and maintaining cordial relations with neutrals -- is the other side of the coin.


Unrelated note, but something I wonder if anyone else here has ever thought about... I think the low casualties have a weird psychological effect on people... if one or two people die a day, it's possible to put a face and name (even if it's just a random face that pops into your head when you hear the news) on each and every person who dies, hence the seeming brutality you describe.

I think that's probably right. And of course war is horrific, whether it kills one person or twenty million. The problem is figuring out when it's less horrific than the alternatives.
Dec 14 2003, 3:37 pm
In response to Darkfirewolf5
Thats a cute kid.
Page: 1 2 3 4