Saddam Hussein caught!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
The guy recieved his warning and chose to ignore it. I'm sure there's a similar ban process at the SomethingAwful boards.
 

overmortal

Bearded Person
And, as LOAF has said, we would have been much more inclined to listen to his point of view if he'd taken the time to participate in discussions beforehand and actually contributed something to this community.

My first posts at this community were to talk serious shit about Dragon*con, and I ended up getting banned for being an asshole (eventually). Once I pulled my head out of my ass, people started liking me a little bit more. Well . . . some of them, anyway.
 

Delance

Victory, you say?
Sabretit said:
I have been a lurker here for the past few months and am a big fan of the wing commander series. I found this site through a banner ad on somethingawful.com.
Is there an ad banner for the CIC on somethingawful.com?

Sabretit said:
P.S. i am NOT just that other guy posting under a different name
Yeah, that statement makes you sound much less suspicious.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
overmortal said:
He would have kept on playing pussyfoot with Saddam, and, in the event that Saddam really did have WMD, we'd be having this conversation wearing gasmasks.
Well, to be fair, even if Saddam did have WMDs, he would never have threatened America with them, for the same reason that he didn't use his gun the other day - he's not suicidal. But regardless of this, it would have been a heck of a pity to leave him in power, that's for sure.
 

Frosty

a full fledged GF
Quarto said:
Well, to be fair, even if Saddam did have WMDs,
Not directly, no. But under his regime, Iraq was an acknowledged state sponsor of terrorism. I'm sure he'd have had no problem supplying some of his pals with a couple real swell tools.

Also, we know he had them, since he had used them in the past. Furthermore, not having found WMDs yet is hardly proof of their non-existence. Iraq is massive, and still very dangerous and chaotic in many regions. It would be difficult indeed to find any needles in that hay stack. Especially when there are those who would seek to keep them hidden.

Saddam's Iraq might never have been a credible opponent on the conventional battlefield, but there are other ways of doing business. It's important to remember that he was a shady thug, and he operated like one.

In addition, I greatly disapprove of everyone's fixation on the WMD issue. While the conviction that Saddam was in possession of WMDs - and was likely to use them - was indeed a justification for action, it was not the sole justification.The following are quotes of President Bush:
  • If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.
  • If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
  • If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.
  • If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.
  • If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
As everyone can see, WMDs were one among many justifications for the long-overdue toppling of Saddam Hussein's gangster regime, and harping solely on them amounts mostly to partisan bickering. Last time I checked, enforcing UN law was considered a good thing. Oh wait, it's only good when a Democrat is president! Since we all know that those evil Republicans are incapable of good deeds. I hope the whole world can see me giving it the finger, because I'm doing it as hard as I possibly can.
 

overmortal

Bearded Person
Damn . . Frosty, that earned you another thirty minutes or so . . . ah, what the hell am I saying? It's a full hour.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Frosty said:
Not directly, no. But under his regime, Iraq was an acknowledged state sponsor of terrorism. I'm sure he'd have had no problem supplying some of his pals with a couple real swell tools.
Yeah, I'm sure he would indeed have no problem supplying those pals of his with even better weapons to use against him. It would be pretty darn hard to count up all the evil actions that Saddam Hussein did, ordered, or indirectly supported, but it's funny to see how often people add fictional charges against him instead of focusing on the real stuff. No, Hussein did not support terrorists. Until the start of the last Iraq war, Al Qaeda considered Saddam their enemy, and wanted to overthrow him.

Also, we know he had them, since he had used them in the past.
So, if I show you a pie, and then eat it, that's proof that I've got more pies? :) You're right, the fact that they haven't been found yet doesn't mean that they don't exist. However, given the amount of Iraqi WMDs that were destroyed immediately after the first Gulf War, and given the efforts made to prevent Iraq from acquiring new WMDs, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that Iraq might in fact have no WMDs left.

However, I agree with you completely - people's fixation on the WMD issue is rather stupid, as indeed is the fact that many people disapprove of Bush and his actions not based on the merits of these actions but because he's a Republican. I may disagree with Bush on some other things, but I certainly have no problem with his actions in Iraq.
 

Lynx

Spaceman
Frosty said:
Also, we know he had them, since he had used them in the past. Furthermore, not having found WMDs yet is hardly proof of their non-existence. Iraq is massive, and still very dangerous and chaotic in many regions. It would be difficult indeed to find any needles in that hay stack. Especially when there are those who would seek to keep them hidden.
And their absence isn't proof that they exist, either. :p I'm sure he had a few left, but those would be mostly old leftovers. Given the effort to rid them of their CBW's earlier, most production facilities were dismanteled and/or destroyed.

In addition, I greatly disapprove of everyone's fixation on the WMD issue.
That is right indeed. The US administration could have sold the war much better to the crowds, but their and the medias sole obsession with the WMD's make their effeorts look somewhat dubious 'cause they haven't been found yet.

Oh wait, it's only good when a Democrat is president! Since we all know that those evil Republicans are incapable of good deeds. I hope the whole world can see me giving it the finger, because I'm doing it as hard as I possibly can.
Looking at history, almost all parties that exist and have existed screwed up at some time. So we can assume that they all equal each other in stupidity/incompetence/evilness. ;)
 

Frosty

a full fledged GF
Quarto said:
Until the start of the last Iraq war, Al Qaeda considered Saddam their enemy, and wanted to overthrow him.
Al Qaeda isn't the only game in town, remember...
Citing captured documents provided by the Israelis, she revealed that Saddam's closest deputy, Vice President Taha Yasin Ramadan, personally had signed checks made out to Palestinian terrorist leaders who had organized suicide-bombing attacks.
(Read the whole article here)
Quarto said:
So, if I show you a pie, and then eat it, that's proof that I've got more pies? :)
Not really such an unreasonable assumption. Certainly prudent in this case.
Lynx said:
I'm sure he had a few left, but those would be mostly old leftovers. Given the effort to rid them of their CBWs earlier, most production facilities were dismantled and/or destroyed.
Precisely. He had at least a few left.
Rep. Jane Harman said:
Some are suggesting, certainly, that (Saddam) destroyed the weapons after 1998 or maybe even sooner. It's just counterintuitive that he would have done that. His would have been the greatest intelligence hoax of all time, fooling every intelligence agency, three presidents, five secretaries of defense and the entire world into thinking he still had the weapons.
And they will be found eventually, but the threat was not imminent. And of course why should anyone wait until it is?
President Bush said:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
Now perhaps I'm mostly preaching to the choir here, since the majority of CZers, from what I've seen, seem to be supportive of the liberation of Iraq, but I think it's still important to say this, because this is starting to boil down to the intellectuals vs. those dumb principled people. The assumption, nay the conviction that Saddam's WMD programs were a danger to the national security of the United States and chief allies is still a perfectly reasonable one, and we shouldn't seek to divest ourselves of all ties to it simply because some chattering elites in their ivory towers are too soon shouting "I told you so!" And I think that's precisely what you're doing. You are now credible supporters of the war because you blithely downplay the threat. "Oh well, I'm glad to be rid of Saddam, but really, was all this WMD talk so necessary?" So we didn't have lunatics exploding cyanide bombs in our cities yet (they did try once, but failed.) Good. I'm glad we had the presence of mind to make a pre-emptive strike before the situation was well out of control, and I will stand by the justification until I die.
Lynx said:
That is right indeed. The US administration could have sold the war much better to the crowds, but their and the medias sole obsession with the WMDs make their efforts look somewhat dubious 'cause they haven't been found yet.
First of all, let's remember that international politics is not a popularity contest, nor should it be. Secondly, as I outlined in my previous post, the administration didn't focus solely on WMDs, but instead a broad range of violations. As for the media, I can't argue with you there. The media, by and large, have placed themselves in a position where anything positive about the war in Iraq is bad for their credibility, and so they have a vested interest in painting the war as bleakly as possible, and painting the administration as foolishly as possible. There are exceptions, of course, but that's still the rule.

At the end of the day, you either know the truth, or you're watching CNN. (Or the BBC or what have you.)
 

Sabretit

Spaceman
Thanks for taking the time to read my post.

I do realise that i am a newbie here and that i only registered to post my opinion, But everyone has to start somewhere i suppose

On the topic of saddam however, My opinion of this is that capturing him and bringing him to justice can be Nothing other than a good thing. He is a tyrant and needs to be brough to justice REGARDLESS of which countries supported him at various times during his regime.

On the other hand Saddam was the only thing holding that entire country together. Iraq was an idea drawn up by us British after the fall of the Ottoman empire sometime around WW1 (can't remember the exact date). The People of iraq are of a very diverse ethnic background, if he didnt rise to power when he did the country would probably have fractured into many seperate pieces along the ethnic borders (I.e the balkans after the fall of the USSR)

Im not saying his presence was a good thing, rather that with his removal a veil of fear has been lifted from the people of Iraq. This fear was the very same that kept the country from splitting. This could prove to be very dangerous to the coalition.

The kurds in the north have already made clear of their desire to seccede(sp?) from iraq and form an independant "Kurdistan". This is something that Turkey would NOT like to see.


-Sabretit
 

overmortal

Bearded Person
But, realize, at the end of the day, the leaders of this nation, and of the coalition, aren't stupid. They're bound to know even more about the situation than we, the general public, know. It reasons to stand that they have some sort of plan to either prevent or deal with such a situation.

Also, yes, you have to start somewhere, but, in your case, jumping onto the very horse who just had his rider shot off wasn't the best place. I'd have suggested a few threads about WC.

And, to any lurkers who are watching:

1) Please, join us! It's fun!
2) Do yourself a great service and try the shallow end of the pool first. Jumping into the deep end (threads like this one) is a good way to drown (get banned).
3) Have your girlfriends e-mail Eder, cause Standoff still needs a girl or two for voiceovers :p
 

Maj.Striker

Swabbie
Banned
Oh sure...he held a ethnicly diverse country together, as any true dictator would, by slaughtering the other ethnic groups. I agree with overmortal and others, Bush is doing a fine job with an unpopular foreign stance. What we've accomplished in Iraq is incredible bar none, we've removed a mini-Hitler from power and people seem to think that's a bad thing. I understand Americans are frustrated with President Bush for sending our troops to war, and as tempted as I am to call them all Hippie, draft-dodging, pot-smoking bastards I think it truly stems a little deeper then that. I think America is tired of playing the "goodie- two-shoes" policeman always stepping in to help other people out, they'd rather us be a modern day Switzerland, completely neutral, staying out of the world's problems and focusing on ourselves only. There's a problem with that, because if America doesn't do the right thing (the "right" thing is always relative!) then no one else will. We see this by France's, Germany's, Russia's and company's reluctance to become involved in Iraq. It's a thankless job that we have to do and I salute our president for stepping up to the plate.
 

Lynx

Spaceman
We need to get back to the topic! Here's an indepth analysis of the effects to the world of Saddams capture by http://www.wackyiraqi.com/home :D

Saddam Behind Bars: World Now Safe for All
Terrorism Gone, Everyone Totally Awesome to Each Other Now




TIKRIT, IRAQ (WI) — In a stunning victory for the Bush war machine, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released preliminary terrorism and violent crime figures for the brief period following the capture of Saddam Hussein on Saturday.

According to the report, terrorism around the world has dropped an astonishing 100% since the arrest of the 66 year-old burrowing semite.

Since the capture of Hussein, car and suicide bombings, hijackings, and assassination attempts have ceased all over the Middle East, and thousands of wanted terrorists have surrendered to authorities around the world.

Drops in pickpocketing, car theft and burglary have also been reported around the world, as well as a significant reduction in rudeness and uptightness and a 450% increase in smiles and rainbows.

While White House officials jumped at the opportunity to declare the world a "safer place" earlier this week, even they had no idea the benefits would go this far.

"This is just a triumph for human kind and for President Bush," exclaimed White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. "He's been telling the world for months that Saddam needed to be stopped to make the world safe, and now is his time to say 'I told you so.'"

While scientists are at a loss to explain it, the capture of Hussein is thought to be the reason that the Potomac is now flowing with peppermint candies and why neighborhoods all over the country are inundated with cute, cuddly puppies and kittens.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Frosty said:
Al Qaeda isn't the only game in town, remember...
Right. The Palestinians, however, are fighting for territory, and their fight is almost entirely limited to that territory - as is their civilian population. That being the case, they could never have used WMDs anyway, because such weapons, by definition, cannot be used for selective strikes. Nor could they ever use such a weapon outside of their territory, because that would end all international support for their cause. Therefore, to the Palestinians, such weapons are useless.

The assumption, nay the conviction that Saddam's WMD programs were a danger to the national security of the United States and chief allies is still a perfectly reasonable one, and we shouldn't seek to divest ourselves of all ties to it simply because some chattering elites in their ivory towers are too soon shouting "I told you so!" And I think that's precisely what you're doing. You are now credible supporters of the war because you blithely downplay the threat. "Oh well, I'm glad to be rid of Saddam, but really, was all this WMD talk so necessary?"
Eh, I downplay a threat that never existed. Even in places like Iraq, logic operates the same way it does everywhere else, and it's not logical to attack the world's only superpower or its allies (especially with weapons the rest of the world disapproves of) if you're interested in survival - and clearly, Saddam Hussein was indeed interested in survival. That's what this whole debate about whether Iraq had WMDs or not seems to be overlooking - to commit a crime, you need to have the means to do so, but above all, you need a motive. What, other than a deep-seated desire to commit suicide, could possibly have been Saddam Hussein's motive in using WMDs against the US and its allies?
 

Frosty

a full fledged GF
Quarto said:
Right. The Palestinians, however, are fighting for territory...
No they're not, they're fighting to eradicate the Jews.
That being the case, they could never have used WMDs anyway, because such weapons, by definition, cannot be used for selective strikes.
Yeah, that's my point exactly. They'd love to gas the hell out of every city in Israel, and would do so in a heartbeat if given the means.
Nor could they ever use such a weapon outside of their territory, because that would end all international support for their cause.
No it wouldn't. You see the world as Arafat and his thugs want you to see it, not how it is. If anything, that sort of lashing out would only increase everyone's eagerness to appease them.

But as was shown, during the previous administration, the Palestinians, or at least their governing entity does not want territory, or else it would not have turned down Bill Clinton's and Ehud Barak's ridiculously generous offer back in 1999 or 2000.

The world is willfully blind to the criminal nature of the whole shebang, and it's offensive to anyone with a conscience.
Eh, I downplay a threat that never existed.
I don't think you're reading me clearly.
Even in places like Iraq, logic operates the same way it does everywhere else, and it's not logical to attack the world's only superpower or its allies (especially with weapons the rest of the world disapproves of) if you're interested in survival - and clearly, Saddam Hussein was indeed interested in survival.
That makes absolutely no sense. Quite clearly, logic was the farthest thing from his mind. You don't murder 20 million of your own people and logically expect to get away with it. You don't invade neighboring countries that are considered valued interests of nations much stronger than you and logically expect to get away with it. You don't disregard 17 Security Council resolutions and logically expect to get away with it. Especially when the President of the USA states rather directly that you will be assfucked in short order if you don't comply.

Unless you have some sort of ace to play. You don't tangle with the big dogs unless you have some serious fangs, and he was actively interested in acquiring the appropriate dental work, so to speak.

So no, the threat did not presently exist (thank God,) and the administration has said so from day one, and I have repeated it multiple times here. It's not much of a pre-emptive strike if you don't pre-empt anything. Have I spelled it out clearly enough yet?
What, other than a deep-seated desire to commit suicide, could possibly have been Saddam Hussein's motive in using WMDs against the US and its allies?
Not in directly using them. Holding the world hostage with the threat of using them. That is the whole crux of all of this. If Saddam Hussein had acquired WMDs in any form, from chemical to nuclear, the probability of those weapons finding their way into the hands of those who would use them would be incredible.

Saddam was instructed among other things, among other things, among other things, among other things, everybody fucking repeat that until they understand it to cease pursuit of all WMD goals and destroy any tools or products of the programs which the UN officially recognized as existing. He didn't. Therefore whatever WMD threat he posed and whatever future threat he would pose were used as elements of justification for striking Iraq, and rightly so.
 

xflvandamme

Spaceman
Frosty said:
No they're not, they're fighting to eradicate the Jews.Yeah, that's my point exactly.
Gotta agree with you there frosty you think people would have learned from Martin Luther King and Gandhi that the best way to achieve change is through non-violent resistance. Not strapping yourself to a bomb and blowing up a mall.
 

overmortal

Bearded Person
Here's what I find gut-wrenchingly amusing (that's a whole lot of sarcasm):

The very people who would argue that President Bush should have waited for more proof of WMD (thus not performing the pre-emptive strike) would have been the first ones to condemn the President when WMD got used on the U.S. unawares, because he didn't protect his nation. Again, I think it's all highly partisan. The media is heavily biased, and, from what I've seen, primarily towards democrats/liberals. Hell, my community college is very liberal, and I live in NC, which, at this time, is notoriously conservative.

I guess I don't have much of a point to make; I just wanted to point out more of my observation that most of the bitching about the war, and President Bush, have been a fire fanned by the liberal media. Another reason I don't watch much television. That, and the fact that there aren't that many good shows to watch.
 

GeeBot

Spaceman
Oh, the liberal media is such a myth. The liberals think the media is conservative, and the conservatives think the media is liberal. The truth is probably that it's somewhere in the middle, or maybe both, and people just pick arguments with those stories they like the least.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top