Originally posted on news.bbc.co.uk
Ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has been arrested in Iraq, according to an unconfirmed report.
The former Iraqi leader was detained in his ancestral home town of Tikrit, the official Iranian news agency IRNA reported.

The US Defence Department said it had no confirmation of the report.

Saddam Hussein is the most wanted man on the list issued by US authorities but has not been seen since Baghdad fell to US forces in April.

Intensive search

A spokeswoman for US-led coalition forces in Baghdad said that a "very important" announcement would be made at a news conference at 1200 GMT but would not give further details.

Nazem Dabag, representative in Iran of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) also said that Saddam Hussein had been arrested.

Saddam Hussein has been the subject of intensive searches by US-led forces in Iraq but previous attempts to locate him have proved unsuccessful.

On 22 July his sons, Uday and Qusay, were killed in a raid by US forces in the northern city of Mosul. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3317429.stm

Edit - more news.

[ December 14, 2003, 11:37: Message edited by: Wildfire ]

I'm watching CNN right now! Thanks Wildfire :) If it is him and I get tutu installed today, I might just be happy for a second :p

That would be nice if they catch atleast one of the men who are responsible for all evil in this world. ;)

Seriously though, I dont think this matter much, it is a long awaited relief for the US though but on the ground in Iraq I dont think it will matter much, sadly. I cant imagine Saddam have been controlling all of the resistance and in situations like this there always tend to be someone ready to step in. Lets also hope that it really is him, and that they really have caught someone. As far as I know the person in question is not in American hands?

Let's do some quick deductive reasoning... assume someone has captured Hussein. Assume it really is Hussein. Assume that this warlord dictator gets what's coming to him in all manner of the phrase, tried for every crime he committed, etc... What will the US do? If they don't completely oversee any and all trials against him, they (we) will most certainly take credit for his capture. Not that I'm complaining about his capture, necessarily, but, well....

I mean, c'mon, we're looking at 4 more years of President Dubya here.

I hope the country will eventually come to a rest, even though that's about the least thing Bush deserves after his reckless adventurism. The Iraqis deserve better though. I have my doubts the iraqi resistance will stall as a result of Saddam's capture. Maybe it'll be weakened, but I could imagine a rise in attacks first, sure commented as "definitely a desperate reaction on the capture of their leader"

The other point is what to do with him. Put him on trial? By a US assigned court? Sort of ... illegitimate, considering the illegality of the US invasion and the relating problem with the privatisation, oil sales and the like.

And I wonder about the charges against him. He didn't do anything against the US. Leaves crimes against humanity and War of Agression.
I doubt the US will really stress the latter part so much, as that would suggest that Bush deserves the same punishment for invading Iraq illegally, mon dieu! Another interesting thing would be what Saddam has to say about the US assistance in the war against Iran. As so many of the Bush crew served under Reagan, and were involved in that effort that is really inconvenient. It sort of rules out that will trialed too.

Yes, it'll be about Crimes against Humanity primarily, and so you can bet Saddam's atrocities will be stressed accordingly. Eventually the US have to be reassured that they did good in invading Iraq, there has been way too much doubt recently.

Wouldn't it be great if Saddam could be tried at an ICC? It would avoid all the stress the US will now have to construct a legitimate legal basis for the show trial against him.

They are claiming they have DNA evidence that it is him, but I sincerely doubt anything coming out of the media these days. We shall wait and see. Could have been a plant by US any way (Hussein I mean, not the DNA).

I do hope that every charge laid against him is also applied to the other offenders, no matter which side of the fence they are on.

Read about it just a few moments ago, and right away one question popped out: will it really be a real trial, or a "trial" done by US? :hmm:

I heard it will be a real trial, the worst thing that could happen now is that he dies in custody or if he gets to a US military trial. Think about the buzz that would become if there were to be a rumor about america killing Saddam.

US Military sure has him on 24 hour watch just to make sure he aint gonna kill himself

This is truely a great day ... unless you are a terrorist, Baathist or the French or German government! :lol:

By the way ...

During the press conferance, when Saddam's picture first appeared on the screen, some people started chanting something in arabic. Does anyone know what they said?

What does the French or German government have to do with anything? Are you insinuating that because they did not endorse an illegal (and questionably unethical) invasion, based on unproved, and now known incorrect, data, that they are somehow fanatical or zaealots? Seems to me you are pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

I know you are making some sort of joke, I seriously hope that this was a part of it.

Edit: Yea, I know I need to lighten up a little- sorry about that. It's the damn heat, makes me grumpy. Still, it needed to be said.

Here's another link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20031214/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_saddam) to the news.

Blackhawk.
If anyone should have ambivalent feelings about Saddam, all the misery he caused and that he needed to be brought down its the U.S. cause it supported him. So, please.

And mentioning the French and German government in one breath with terrorists isnt all too funny. :rolleyes:

Wouldn't it be great if Saddam could be tried at an ICC? It would avoid all the stress the US will now have to construct a legitimate legal basis for the show trial against him. No. I wouldn't turn him over to the ICC. I'd let him be tried in Iraq by the Iraqis - which are what the preliminary reports are saying may happen (in Civil court). I hope it happens that way.

Sheesh, a five page spread in the papers. You'd think it was something important. :)

Anyway, like Laches, I agree he should be tried in Iraq by the Iraqis. They know first hand what he's done, and they should get to decide, not anyone else.

Huzzah :) Not to spoil the party, but it's about damned time. It's been what? 8 months since the war ended and the occupation started?

Oh yeah, as I said in the other thread:

I think they should sentence him to "death by shoe". Drop him in the middle of Baghdad and have him beaten to death with shoes by the very citizens he terrorised.

I'd make one hell of a judge :grin:

@Blackhawk

The subtitles here said "Death to Saddam" or something like that...

@ Morgoth

Thank you. I'm glad that they were saying Saddam! :)

Oh, good heavens, what a cynical bunch we are. Compare Hussein's fate to that of Charles Taylor, another scummy sadist that the US dealt with in a proper, diplomatic, multilateral way. Taylor is still controlling his billions from a Nigerian chateau, protected from retribution, and pulling puppet strings back home in Liberia. Which of these stories - Iraq or Liberia - has the happier ending, I wonder? Which is more in line with justice?

Thank goodness Hussein will be dealt with by American-appointed Iraqis instead of the ICC, Milosevic-style.

It is good to see him captured at last, but I think people are stupid to think that the attacks will lessen. Ever since the invasion started, I don't think Saddam had much to do with the attacks, so there is no reason for them to decrease. Yes, I guess they have lost their figure head, but if I where in that position I would increase the attacks on US to try and get them to release him.

And think what this is going to do to Bush's rating! Now that he has someone to stuff and hang on his wall, his ratings will go sky high, and so begins another 4 years of Bush's "war against terror" :rolleyes:

Now don't get me wrong, it's certainly good that Saddam has been captured, but IMO it would have been better if he where captured by the Iraqie people, and possibly even killed on the spot, or if his body was found dead by some peace keepers. That would just lessen my predicted increase of "terrorism" and lessen Bush's vote increase.

I for one, am glad that the Iraqis will never fear Saddam again. It may not shut the rebel's down, but now that Saddam is in custody, all the people that were scared to help lest he come back, might decide to be part of the solution. The only problem with a trial by the Iraqi's, is if a Saddam supporter(hereby known as Saddamists :D hahaha), decides to start bullying/threatening/haranguing the jury. Still, he should be tried by the Iraqis.

Soooooooooo.

They've done the DNA comparision? Or what?

Rotku.... That's EXACTLY what I was trying to say. It's wonderful for the people he terrorized that he's caught, and certainly his punishment should be according to them, but what does this mean for the american people? 4 more years of Dubya! I guarantee that suddenly every person that may have been ambivalent about Bush will have something to wave around saying "See! See! He did exactly what he promised to do!" Which is of course, true, in a very sad way.

This is a great day for humanity.


BTW, is there a sale on sour grapes in here? :D

Yes, they made DNA tests. No one asked where they got his DNA to compare it with in the first place.

How convenient that Bush has this great opener just now for his re-election campaign... And that a court was set up in Iraq just a week ago where Saddam will be tried. He was dumb enough not to have killed himself on the spot, I'm sure the trial against him will end up with him dead anyway. Not that this would be a loss for humanity, but still.

If I were cynical I'd even say that Bush probably had Saddam tracked for weeks (months?), and only waited till now when his ratings dropped substantially, to lift them with Saddam's head on a pike. But I'd only say this if I were really cynical.

I just hope this doesn't give Bush enough of a boost to get re-elected. That would make me seriously sad.

What I am confused by is who caught him? The first reports I saw and what was pasted first in this thread talked about Kurdiranians or something while everything I have heard since after this afternoon has been nothing about US troops catching him? Anyone got some more info on that?

As for his trial I actually think it seems like they are on the right track with talking about Saddam being tried by Iraqis. It may be a good first test of their new found freedom and the responsibility towards justice and legality it entails.

BTW, I just the French foreign minister expressing his joy that Saddam is captured. Just because people may have been against the handling of the Iraq situation does not make them pro-Saddam, even if that is the image the people who thinks Dubya is the second best thing to God himself like to paint.

My understanding of who caught him is that a tip from someone from Tikrit told them about a couple of bunkers(rat holes really), in the area. Spec Ops troops searched them, and found nothing, they kept searching and found some they weren't told about. Saddam was in one of these with two AK's and a pistol, although he gave up. Which goes to prove just how big a coward he is. He had an air vent but it was disguised. They(the soldiers) probably just saw something out of place and BAM they got him.

I believe it was the 4th Infantry Division with "Special Forces" according to some of the articles I've read. Whether it really was Special Forces or whether it was Special Ops (which seems more likely to me) I don't know. If we get any pics of the guys in the group you may be able to tell just from the way their hair is cut apparently.

There were about 600 members of the force though. Apparently over the last few weeks they'd been closing in by talking to members of his extended family. I really think you have to buy in to a huge conspiracy theory and or just be blinded by hatred of Bush to think that the US could've caught Hussein earlier and didn't. You don't take the risk of him slipping away or choking on a chicken bone and being buried in an unmarked grave or... if you could catch him - that is entirely too risky.

As far as the Iraqi tribunal, it's been in the works for months apparently:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1001/p06s01-woiq.html

@ Taluntain

I think you are going to be very sad...

Saddam's capture destroyed the only issue my fellow Democrats had to attack his leadership. :(

Tal wrote: If I were cynical I'd even say that Bush probably had Saddam tracked for weeks (months?), and only waited till now when his ratings dropped substantially, to lift them with Saddam's head on a pike. But I'd only say this if I were really cynical.Just wait until September 11, 2004, when they unveil Osama bin Laden on a platter...Just in time for the election.

Though I haven't followed the news on this one religiously, IIRC 4th Infantry Division actually were tipped off by one of Saddam's relatives. Mother-in-law? Anyway, it seems to me that Dubya finally did what daddy couldn't do back when he was President because, again IIRC, the way I understand it, Bush Snr declared war on the Middle East when he had the presidency and was aiming to get Saddam back then. So is this the ultimate Christmas Present or what?

This is truely a great day ... unless you are a terrorist, Baathist or the French or German government!Are you suggesting the US should attack France and/or Germany next?

Truth be told I feared a loose yet seemingly impotent Saddam Hussein far less than I do the prospect of another four year term of Bush in charge. I just hope we do not fall under his maniacal gaze. The commercial -and now military- hegemony of the US administration has hurt me far more than Saddam or Iraq ever did (or I fear ever would have).

This is a very sad day. The long term effects of another four years of the Unelected Fraud are a million times worse than having some powerless old man continue living at the bottom of a rat hole.

Blackhawk wrote

Saddam's capture destroyed the only issue my fellow Democrats had to attack his leadership I hope you mean his leadership literally, and not his presidency. if you are not speaking literally,
I really hope this opinion does not represent all the democrats in the US. not being a US citizen I can think of several other issues the Bush administration can be confronted about.

I'm really quite disappointed in Saddam. One would expect that he would have been out there organising resistance, rallying those loyal to him, making great schemes to reclaim Iraq, but instead he's hiding in a hole. *sigh*

Saddam's capture destroyed the only issue my fellow Democrats had to attack his leadership.Even if you didn't meant this as a joke, Blackhawk, it's still too funny not to laugh at. Or, now that I think about it, sad as well. So altogether, comical at the least, and tragi-comical at worst.

I really think you have to buy in to a huge conspiracy theory and or just be blinded by hatred of Bush to think that the US could've caught Hussein earlier and didn't. You don't take the risk of him slipping away or choking on a chicken bone and being buried in an unmarked grave or... if you could catch him - that is entirely too risky.Unlike with Bush, the chances of Saddam choking on a pretzel were really not so great.

Just wait until September 11, 2004, when they unveil Osama bin Laden on a platter...Just in time for the election. Bel, I don't think Bush needs Osama any more. Saddam is a much bigger criminal in the eyes of the American public. His image has been drilled into the minds of the Americans as the image of Devil himself for the last 20 years. The fact that he didn't have anything to do with 9/11 is irrelevant; according the the polls the majority of the American public believes he is responsible for it, and that's more than good enough. Who cares about those imaginary stockpiles of WMD these days anyway.

The new-founded Iraqi tribunal is scheduled to put Saddam on trial at the same time with Bush's re-election campaign. What else do you need to win than to have America's REAL public enemy #1 in chains on TV every day? Saddam is going to be in the news regularly for one last time - to fuel Bush's re-election as he's being tried in Iraq. No other dictator of the 20th century had a more pathetic end.

I applaud the US's capture of Saddam. The only problem I have is with all the circumstances regarding it.

[ December 15, 2003, 15:33: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

It's great to see that everyone feels that capturing Saddam is a good thing. [snip]
Or maybe not.

I'll go back to sleep now.

[Offensive remarks against the AoDA rules removed. Go read the sticky on top of the AoDA thread listing.] -Tal

[ December 15, 2003, 14:32: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

Wonder what the charges will be. Especially if they will actually put something along the lines of attacking US in there. Or 9/11. Needless to say, doubts arise as to whether he will have proper defence. Time will show. In my humble opinion, there's a huge chance that they will turn it into a sitcom - a pathetic mock trial lasting until a few months after Dubya's reelection. Or perhaps contrary - a one shot one kill instant trial, you only add water (Saddam)? Who bothers getting evidence if it's so clearly obvious, anyway?

Saddam was in one of these with two AK's and a pistol, although he gave up. Which goes to prove just how big a coward he is.Jorgon, over 200 (IIRC) Spec-Ops were in the operation, do you really think that anyone would dare to attack all of those alone with only two AKs and a pistol. IIRC, the pistol of choise for Saddam is a Glock 18, and that would give him 32 bullets, together with two clips for the AKs, and that is a total of 92 bullets, that would mean that you would have to kill 2.12 soilders with each bullet, and succeed with THAT, and you'll wonder how the Americans won the war at all. :D

That didn't stop his sons from fighting back. That's what makes Saddam a coward. He expects everyone, including his sons, to die for the cause. But when his time comes, he gives up without a peep.

@ 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).

Even if you didn't meant this as a joke, Blackhawk, it's still too funny not to laugh at. Or, now that I think about it, sad as well. So altogether, comical at the least, and tragi-comical at worstBoth 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.

Bel, I don't think Bush needs Osama any more. Saddam is a much bigger criminal in the eyes of the American public. 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.

While many people of the U.S. believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11,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.

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.You can only speak for yourself, really... Unless you have some data to back it up, you can't tell me who all average Americans consider a bigger threat. I gave my own example based on a number of polls conducted on the subject in the US that I've read about. What are you basing your writing on?

And since according to you, everyone pretty much considers Osama a much bigger threat... What are you (that is, the US) doing in Iraq then? The entire US army should be out there looking for Osama. But the US seems quite content with Osama on the loose for now. The whole "War on Terror" thing started with an attack that we know today was masterminded by Bin Laden, from his own admission. Yet the war is currently going on in Iraq, while the person behind 9/11 is stil out there, forgotten by the US media as if he had never existed. Sorry, but I just don't see this as logical.

[ December 15, 2003, 21:24: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

The whole "War on Terror" thing started with an attack that we know today was masterminded by Bin Laden, from his own admission. Yet the war is currently going on in Iraq, while the person behind 9/11 is stil out there, forgotten by the US media as if he had never existed. Sorry, but I just don't see this as logical.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.

Its a War on Terrorism - not a War on Bin Laden.So your point is, one terrorist is as good as another? Funny, Bush obviously didn't think so, considering he went straight to Afghanistan to get Osama in the first place. Unless you have some deeper insight you wish to provide for us to contemplate?

Aldeth the Foppish Idiot, I'd have posted links along with my posts, but the polls were all in newspapers and various publications, unfortunately... And I've seen them over the period of almost a year, so it'd be near impossible to track them down in a reasonable time frame.

Blackhawk-

Both really. Since Saddam is captured, the one and only issue, that was being used successfully by Bush's opponants, was basically destroyed.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. :rolleyes: 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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44381-2003Dec7.html)" 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.

So your point is, one terrorist is as good as another? Funny, Bush obviously didn't think so, considering he went straight to Afghanistan to get Osama in the first place. Unless you have some deeper insight you wish to provide for us to contemplate?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.

Not all terrorists (or sympathizers) are equal in depravity.You got that right. There are many far, far worse in Africa, for example. Both terrorists and dictators. And in North Korea, too. I don't see Bush going there guns ablazin' anytime soon, however.

All are at war with the United States.Unless Bush comes knocking on their door, telling them they've suddendly become the enemy of the US, I'm sure most of them won't have the faintest idea that they're at war with the US.

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.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.

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.
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.

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.Yes, so he did. Yes, he had it comming. He, in a way, asked for it. However, he can't be held guilty of the war. Rejecting an ultimatum isn't the same as declaring war or invading.

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.I used Poland specifically as an example of a Good Boy against Saddam who was a Bad Boy, to show that Poland could also have evaded a war if they submitted to Hitler's claims. We can't say Poland wasn't guilty because they were Good and Saddam was because he was Bad.

But something tells me you could agree with this ;)

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.Must get Medieval then, hehe. I conquered whole world with Poland in Europa Universalis 2 (that is without: Knights of St. John, Sardinia, Duchy of Athens ;) ). Bordering with Venice in 10 years from start or getting to Malaysia by land before 1750, annexing Spanish and English empires diplomatically (France fell somewhere at the beginning) among other exploits. Speaking of mongers :D But then, I've won that game playing Vatican :shake:

Grey Magistrate

Ooh...I can't resist...PLEASE don't take this as a personal attack!I would of taken it as a personal attack, but all you wrote in response to my comments were your thoughts. You didn't refute my concerns; so, no harm done! :D

Whew! Better to be ingratiating than inane, irrelevant than irritating, and refined than refuting.

or one man, whose halo seems to be blinding him a bit.I just have to comment that this is rather nice metaphor. I'll have to use it sometime! :)

Better to be ingratiating than inane, irrelevant than irritating, and refined than refuting.Damn, another excellent quote! What is going on in this thread! Everyone is getting poetic! :)


@ Grey Magistrate

Argh! You beat me responding to the list! :doh: But, you did a better job than what I would have done ... so I can't whine! :spin: But, I do have to disagree with you on voodoo economies.

Well, I have just heard on TV from a CBS evening news source that we will see Saddam's trial on TV... and I quote.... "This will be incredible television....a real treat for all Americans."

It makes me feel sick and ashamed to be an American. If they go through with this, it will be such a hideous inappropriate debacle--a media feeding frenzy the likes we have never seen. They take things just way too far....and I'm sick and tired of it. Next thing we'll hear they'll be selling tickets. What on god's earth has happened in this country.....

Don't give up on this Country yet, Spellie. We are still the greatest experiment in Democracy that the world has ever seen, and we will survive this, even if it becomes a media debacle.

It certainly can't be bigger than the O.J. Simpson trial, and we have survived that. I think by the time this is done it will fall somewhere between the trial of Manuel Noriega and Madam Helmsley.

I've already given up. It's god damn shameful. And our media is the laughing stock the world over. You should have seen the looks on these people's faces when they heard that it would be televised....you could almost see the foam dripping from their mouths.

The whole thing disgusts me.

The trials of the Nazis were televised. Why not now?

I'm going to pretend I'm my dad here and say "If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you do the same?"

Surely you have better things to do?

I had no desire to see the Nazi trials either. It's not just the cameras in the courtroom, it's all the media hype and frenzy that goes along with it. Like showing Live at 5 war coverage, riding along with the troops...ooo what fun! Let's see if we can see heads blown off! Reality TV at its finest!

It all smacks of sensationalism. Some things are meant to be private for god's sake. Do you want to bet, they'll even encourage TV viewers to log on to some network and give their verdict? It's ******* absurdity at its finest.

I'M glad that Hussein has been captured but I think Ben Laden is more dangerous.
Live war on TV has a plus. We can't ignore it.
I don;t like the way Bush ignored the UN. It may not be perfect but it's all we have in the form of International "government.
We need to fight terrorism but together.

Bush scares me.

We may be the only superpower left but if the rest of the world turns against us we won't be for long. Right now all we have is this world (and fantasy).

Since Saddam is captured, the one and only issue, that was being used successfully by Bush's opponants, was basically destroyed.That's not really so. I know that a few have already responded to this, but I think the problem for you is that many of your fellow Democrats voted for, and still support this war. It is a real problem for them since they are trying to have it both ways. Even Hillary voted for it, gave Shrub a blank check on it, and now she has problems because she goes to Iraq and starts trying to manipulate the issue, to have it all her way. As much as I like Hillary, (and admire her for a number of things) I think she is playing too much politics with this issue, and her intentions are very transparent. She may be a babe for an older woman, but someone needs to tell the Empress that she has no cloths on. What I'm leading up to with all this, of course, is Howard Dean.

There's no doubt that there is a kind of struggle between Hillary and her followers and the Dean faction. It may not be as intense as some believe, but nevertheless, he is really challenging her leadership in the Democratic party. I think in her mind and the rest of the leadership of the DLC, Dean is an outsider. Take a gander at this link:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=252252

This really jumps out at me from the Dems leadership's remarks:

And most of all, Gov. Dean has risen to prominence by battening on hostility to the war in Iraq. Can he lay out a comprehensive, internationalist vision for foreign policy and national security that is tougher and smarter than Bush's?
What the hell are these people talking about? They are supposed to be the opposition party. Man, they sound like a bunch of Republicans. This is exactly the reason why I gave up on the Democrats about 5 years ago. I get the feeling that they had already written off 2004 to Bush, and then, in 08, along comes Hillary as the big time contender. But Dean has changed the equation. Now, if he wins, Hillary will more than likely have to wait more than 8 years for her chance. Dean can beat Bush on the issues, IMO, and Saddam or no Saddam he can really force all the issues that IX brought up in his post. Plus, that of the Nader charge, which is that Bush is nothing more than a corporation with a suit on.

He is weak on the environment, corporate corruption and collusion, and regardless of the recent "turn-around" in the economy, it is still way below what it was when he first took office. What does Bush have to show for three years? a broken-down old dictator that he dug out of a hole somewhere and is parading around before the rest of the world in a dog-and-pony show. It's not much when you came right down to it. I could go on with this, but I don't want to be "longwinded" about it. ;)

[ December 16, 2003, 16:20: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

How can people be so transparent? I just saw on MSNBC.com a poll that was taken over the weekend. The poll had been planned for weeks in advance - in fact it was the typical polls that run every few weeks for the president's approval rating. Normally, they combine the results from both Saturday and Sunday. However, since the Saddam capture was announced Sunday morning (U.S. time) they actually separated the results from Saturday and Sunday.

Bush's approval rating Saturday: 41%
Bush's approval rating Sunday: 56%.

You capture Saddam, and you get a 15% boost in ratings. Un-freaking-believable. Note that this wasn't his overall approval rating. It was on his foreign policy, regarding whether or not "America was heading in the right direction". The only thing I find more shocking than the 15% jump, was that there were 41% who actually thought "America was heading in the right direction" even before Saddam was caught.

@Idiot - Here is the link: Idiots numbers. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3721220/) As you, sort of, pointed out, it wasn't his approval rating, which rose from 52% to 56%.

@Chandos
As much as I like Hillary, (and admire her for a number of things) I think she is playing too much politics with this issue, and her intentions are very transparent. She may be a babe for an older woman, Your definition of "babe" and mine vary greatly. :D

We are still a long way from the election and a lot can happen between now and a year from now. I wouldn't make too much of those numbers except that Shrub needs all the help he can get right now.

Some things are relative, JF. For Republicans, they put Barbara Bush's picture on the dollar bill. :p

Talking about televising the trial...
Some would say it's the natural extention of the new 'reality tv' influx we seem to have going on over here...
(Oh come on, you knew someone had to say it)
I mean really, think about it. First we have, as Spell said, some network doodad that decides to encourage viewers to call in with their verdict. Then someone smartly coins the phrase "This is REAL reality tv!" Next thing you know, we've got "Survivor:The Saddam Trials" and every american with any sense of decency left weeps bitterly.
To paraphrase (and bastardize, a bit) Jon Stewart, Court TV has just locked itself in a bathroom with a Times magazine.

The fact that Hussein is caught is a good thing. But as Ragusa said the end does not justifies the means unless of course you are a Jesuite. And another thing, until it proves beyond any doubt that this is Shadamm and not one of his doubles there is no need to boast.
And one more question, now that Hussein is finally caught when we will see the occupation end?
Furthermore Hussein should not be accounted among the terrorists, he is responsible for many attrocities but that is a different thing. And at least for me, there are other "people" out there in administration seats around the world who are far more worse than Shaddam but they are left free to do as they please. Why?
We all know why but who dares to admit it, is the question.
@Grey
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.
Are you sure about this because i have read different stories. And there is the fact that he is still been held responsible for many terrorist attacks.
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.
That too is a little shaky especially if you think that the attacks of the Talibans have increased and recently a bomb attack was made in Kabul. Not to mention that Afganistan now resembles Medieval Europe, with feuds and where is the word "Baron" put the word "Warlord". Or should we mention that the international funds that were given to Afganistan to rebuilt are not being quite effectivelly used (maybe misplaced?) and only Kabul and Kandahar has managed a small portion of rebuilting. Not to mention the fact that heroine production has skyrocketed again, or the sad fact that not even UN promotes repatriation (http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/+FwwBmeCxdpCwwwwowwwwwwwmFqnN0bIhFqnN0bItFqnDni5AF qnN0bIcFqAEhtwDo5BwDDzmxwwwwwwwGFqRP1xxnG5amnpcdGn 5aM1GmnGadhaEhtrwDawomaidGAnG5/opendoc.htm)
despite the fact that it has already been almost 2 years since the "Liberation" of Afganistan.
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.
Excuse me but IIRC, Shaddam did fully submit to the UN inspections and resolutions, even (in the case of inspections) the last minute. But the plans were already set, weren't they? And i don't think that some of Mr Bushs demands especially after Shaddam accepted the inspectors back in were part of the UN resolutions (to leave the country and surrender).
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.
IIRC there were ethnic/reiligious discriminating attacks, there is hunger and a huge problem with the water infrastructure, naturally no WMD (since he did not have any) and naturally no attack against Israel since his army was pathetic at least after of ten years of sanctions and global isolation.
HOLD IRAQ? I was not aware that US was there to stay. It seems that US intensions about the future of Iraq are cloudy still.
Maybe our world image will be sufficiently restored once we've single-handedly saved it from the Axis of Evil.
Well the means are the real problem not the end. And there US is lacking a lot.
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.
War with Hitler was completely justified from our point of view. If you were a member of the Nazis you would think differently.
And UK and France were in fact the ones who with their actions and treaties after the 1st WW provided the fertile grounds for the seed of Nationalsozialism to grow and make the grab of Germanys administration. So they were not innocent for that matter.
Grey you know i like you a lot :cool: so don't take this personally i just found in your post many things changelling me to respond. and since i had quite some time to visit here i could not help myself ;)

And at least for me, there are other "people" out there in administration seats around the world who are far more worse than Shaddam but they are left free to do as they please. Why?
We all know why but who dares to admit it, is the question.I have freely admitted it on multiple occasions here; it's simply that what I say does not agree with what you purport to "know".

Excuse me but IIRC, Shaddam did fully submit to the UN inspections and resolutions, even (in the case of inspections) the last minute.You recall incorrectly.

He may have not submitted 110% percent and he may have indulged in some kind of evasion but he did submit a lot more than what you are trying to make it appear BTA. Disinformation seems to be the norm in this debate. It is as they say, truth is the first victim of war.

Just two unrelated bits:

Chandos - my conservative college roommate was so entranced by Hillary Clinton's "babeness" that he used to fantasize about her in a Supreme Court robe. I think he'd vote for her just for the chance that her face might someday go on a dollar bill.

Mithrantir - thanks, I like you a lot, too! Isn't it great the way we reality-worshipping warmongers and mysticism-loving peaceniks can get along so well?

1. Hillary is NOT a babe.

2. Chelsey might very well be. She was smart enough to move to the other side of the contiguous States; that alone is babe material. But then, to contrast, she's a lawyer. It's like, 49/51, but I'm not sure which side it is with the majority. Only time will tell, I'm afraid.

3. The general idea is if you are funding the enemy, you're not helping the situation. Right or wrong, do or die, that's how it's worked in the past and that's how it works today.

4. It's not that all these terrorists don't hate all the Europeans. ALL of the Europeans. Even the ones that haven't joined the European Union or NATO just yet. It's that right now, the vast majority of roads lead to the United States. Personally, I don't really care; I have better things to do than play games with my little Ego. But there are people who don't, and those are probably the majority right now.

So, the Great White Fleet makes a world tour. Partially out of Marketing, partially out of deterrance. Either way, envy or fear, it combines to form hate. It's popular to hate the US.

People hate us because we have the ability to bus kids to everyone's playground. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Seriba, South America, Cuba, Columbia. I don't know how to spell the others. Just because we don't send tanks doesn't mean we don't have U-2's flying overhead.

The last time we didn't have the ability to bus kids around the world, people were in the habit of Impressing our kids. Mostly out of disdain, but partially out of revenge. It's old news, but there's still some lessons to be remembered.

Terrorism isn't going away in our lifetime. I mean, the IRA isn't bombing my hometown, but it still irks me to read or hear about it.



The Bottom Line:

When terrorists bomb a plane out of the air over Scotland, we don't think "Bah! That's just stiff necked Britts and drunk Scotts. Man, **** Sherlock Holmes and Britain."

We think "Whoa! Dude, that could have been us! I mean, it wasn't; but it could have been. Christ, last week it was us when that guy rolled a load of fertilizer up to that Federal building. Oh man, that could have been Joe. Or Mary. Or our grand daughter. Dude, we gotta do something about that."

Now, sure. It's strictly selfish. There's no question about it being selfish. We're only worried about ourselves.

*cough*

But we have a *really* extended family...

Saddam should be taken to the streets of Baghdad and handed over to the Iraqi people to do with him as they see fit, in a similar fashion as what happened with Mussolini...