Saddam Captured - Alive!

Rxke · 2003-12-14 06:37:16

Wow. didn't think they'd get him alive...

Lot's of celebrating going on, already, esp. Kurdish parts of Iraq, now that's no surprize of course...

Shaun Barrett · 2003-12-14 19:09:30

Now we need Osama behind bars (or better yet, strung up like the barbarian he is) along with his evil little Egyptian weasel of a side-kick, Ayman Al-Zawahiri!

A great day for the Iraqi people who can now move forward to a better future, free of the spectre of Saddam forever.
Hearty congratulations also to the coalition forces, especially the U.S. 4th Division troops, for a job well done! As a news reporter said today, this can only do the coalition cause a lot of good. He went on to say that if the world had followed the French and German line, we'd still be dealing with a Saddam Hussein living in a palace laughing at the U.N., rather than found hiding in a hole like the rat he is.
Saddam can now be tried for his crimes by an Iraqi court and, with any luck, hanged for what he's done.

Before they hang him, though, there's now a good chance we'll learn the truth about his WMD programs. It doesn't look like he'll have the guts to resist intense interrogation for long!

What wonderful news for everyone ... what a great day!!

Palomar · 2003-12-14 19:49:47

*Yes, what surprising news! My husband broke the news to me very early this morning (he's the "turn the TV on first thing in the morning" type). I was half asleep, and thought...oh sure. Is this definite news? Or maybe they caught him? Or it's someone who looks like him? Mixed messages? I was figuring on a major "mea culpa" ... but nope.

One news commentator mentioned the fact that Saddam allowed himself to be apprehended (didn't suicide), and that the Baath party loyalists may very surprised by this. I got the impression that Saddam has bragged in the past that he'd only be "caught" dead by enemies, etc., and that this would be an added component of disappointment to his loyalists. Did anyone else catch reference to this or did I misunderstand?

Fitting...the dirty rat found in a dirty rat's hole.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-12-14 21:25:03

It is good news, indeed. Especially if it does lead to less skirmishes and more arrests, etc, as can best be hoped. But I am skeptical, and I will be until I see a freely democratic Iraq without constant attacks occuring and without our people over there. I think that ultimately it is naive to believe that Saddam was really worth anything, as it is to believe that there are WMDs in Iraq.

It can go any way, though, Bill. This is probably the most unpredictable admin. I've ever witnessed in my life (and in order to avoid a flame war, I won't say how exactly). Does keep things exciting, eh?

Shaun Barrett · 2003-12-14 23:08:06

Whether or not Saddam ever explicitly stated that he would never be taken alive, I'm quite sure that's the impression he would've wanted to give to his clueless followers.

A reporter on T.V. drew attention to the fact that Saddam exhorted his troops and fellow Iraqis to fight to the death, though in the end Saddam himself declined that heroic option!!
:;): :laugh:

Palomar · 2003-12-15 10:41:40

Josh: "I think that ultimately it is naive to believe that Saddam was really worth anything..."

*Huh? He was dictator with absolute power, worth millions if not billions from exploitation of his nation and its peoples, ordered the torture and murders of anywhere from 500,000 to 1 million people. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you somewhere, but if not then I have to wonder what your criteria FOR being "worth anything" is... ???

Josh: "It can go any way, though, Bill..."

*Huh? Bill hasn't chimed in on this discussion yet. Josh, it's early in the morning...are you trying to pull a mind scramble on me?

Shaun: "A reporter on T.V. drew attention to the fact that Saddam exhorted his troops and fellow Iraqis to fight to the death, though in the end Saddam himself declined that heroic option!!"

*Yep. A reporter yesterday rightly called Saddam what he is: A coward.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-12-15 13:05:03

Frummpers, the one-eyed, all-seeing teddy bear strikes again!

Every child that dreams, dreams upon a bed. And every bed where children dream, lies a boogey-man lurking beneath, and between, the bed and floorboards.

Yet each and every boogey-man eventually succumbs to the light of the one eyed Frummpers, ever vigilant for the things that wait for tiny ankles to descend.

Rxke · 2003-12-15 14:24:09

He had a talk with the current government...

The guy is incredible:

"He was saying that 'When I came in the Iraqi people were barefoot and hungry. I fed them and bought them slippers'," Rubaiye said. "

SLIPPERS???????????

Now we know from whom Comical Ali got his inspiration!

Josh Cryer · 2003-12-15 15:47:52

Cindy, Bill made a comment about Bush not making a "man to Mars" announcement the 17th because that would spoil all the good PR he's getting from the Saddam capture. He must have deleted his post for some reason.

By "worth anything" I meant from a stragetic standpoint. He wasn't doing anything behind the scenes (no small resistance can be effective with some guy dictating how things should go). Of course he's "worth something" to the international courts, and for political points, I was specifically talking about the information we could get from him. I, for one, think it's more important to get rid of the attacks than it is to capture some guy who hides in a rat hole.

I personally like the conspiracy that Saddam was held captive there for the last 6 months or so.

RobertDyck · 2003-12-15 16:49:15

Saddam may have been terrible, but I still think he was a problem for the Iraqi people to deal with. The U.S. government has been looking for a way to get out of Iraq and go home; this could be it. Their goal was to rid Iraq of Saddam, so U.S. troupes now have him. I heard a reporter express surprise that Iraqi?s are still fighting even after Saddam was captured; I?m not surprised. The few who supported Saddam did so because he kept the U.S. out. They view the U.S. as a foreign government and think rule from a foreign government is even worse than Saddam. Dick Cheney has tried to say this is a liberation of Iraq and not an occupation. That would mean the people of Iraq have to determine the form of their own government, and it is imperative that the U.S. have absolutely no say what-so-ever. The U.S. and U.K. troupes are the ones that invaded; any influence from the invaders would demonstrate this is an occupation and not a liberation. That means no say in Iraq?s new constitution, no say in how the elections are held for the provisional government. Whether they select a republican democracy, parliamentary democracy, or direct democracy has to be up to them. Whether they stay as a single country or split apart by ethnic regions has to be their decision. I think they would be too vulnerable to their neighbours if they split up, but it has to be their decision. In fact, whether they select a democracy, dictatorship, religious government, or communism has to be their decision. Obviously I would select democracy, but the people who live there have to choose if it is to be a free democracy at all. The country must be initially formed in freedom or it will never be free; you cannot impose freedom from without.

Bottom line: here is a great exit opportunity for the U.S.

Josh Cryer · 2003-12-15 16:59:21

Can't leave (or set up the democratic process) until the bombing stops though, Robert.

We leave, as Cobra and others have pointed out, some other guy(s) can take the place. It would definitely be a mob rule of sorts.

I think that this does give us an opportunity to move away to some extent (if we back off a little at just the right moments, the resistence may slow or even stop), but we can't just assume that this means we can back off completely and things will work out. And even then, it would just be a show of faith.

In any case, whatever government Iraq finally has, be assured that it will be one who sells their oil to the US.

RobertDyck · 2003-12-16 10:50:29

Can't leave (or set up the democratic process) until the bombing stops though, Robert.
We leave, as Cobra and others have pointed out, some other guy(s) can take the place. It would definitely be a mob rule of sorts.
I think that this does give us an opportunity to move away to some extent (if we back off a little at just the right moments, the resistence may slow or even stop), but we can't just assume that this means we can back off completely and things will work out. And even then, it would just be a show of faith.

The bombing will never stop as long as U.S. or U.K. troupes are in Iraq. You're asking for something that will never happen. You are also asking for domination of Iraq, not just Saddam Hussein's regime. That means Iraq as a nation has been militarily conquered and occupied, not liberated. Is the U.S. really just as bad as the Soviet Union when it occupied Ukraine?

As for mob rule, those who believe in elitism call all forms of democracy ?mob rule?. Freedom has to mean they decide for themselves, and they may very well make a decision that you don?t like. It?s their decision to make; not yours, not mine, not George W. Bush?s.

The U.S. could ask the U.N. to take over, but that would require as a prerequisite that the U.S. get out and have no influence what so ever in the outcome.

In any case, whatever government Iraq finally has, be assured that it will be one who sells their oil to the US.

Are you admitting this is blood-for-oil?

Palomar · 2003-12-16 11:41:50

Robert: "Is the U.S. really just as bad as the Soviet Union when it occupied Ukraine?"

*I don't know the specifics of the USSR/Ukraine thing. I guess we will find out.

Robert: "As for mob rule, those who believe in elitism call all forms of democracy ?mob rule?. Freedom has to mean they decide for themselves, and they may very well make a decision that you don?t like. It?s their decision to make; not yours, not mine, not George W. Bush?s."

*What if the "average" Iraqi has no working concept of the words "liberty" or "democracy" or "freedom to choose"? What about the Shiites and fundamentalist Mulahs who want to seize absolute power and turn Iraq into a theocracy? That's not the decision "of the people," surely (unless force and coercion of the few over the majority is now synonymous with "choice").

It looks like we'll have to stay in a bit longer, but I want the troops out ASAP as well.

Robert, I'm also curious about how the "average" (sorry, I don't like that word, but am pressed to find a more fitting one right now...busy and all that) Canadian feels about the fact that the UK went into this with the US, and that Australia has sent soldiers in as well? Does Canada feel a bit isolated from its "cousins" in this regard? Canada is in a really unique (strange) position here...

Not attempting to start a debate or argument; I'm just curious.

--Cindy

P.S.: I also can't help wondering how various opinions/viewpoints would be different if we were all from the nation of "the other guy." But that's pointless speculation, I suppose.

P.P.S.: I also do sincerely wonder of much of Canada's stance has been due to the influence of its most recent (now former) PM of French heritage.

RobertDyck · 2003-12-16 12:26:01

France and Germany stayed out of Iraq, so Canadians don't feel isolated. The "west" is not in support of the invasion of Iraq, just the U.S. and a few allies. Besides, Canada didn't actually stay out of it. Canadians were unreservedly in support of the attack against Al Quaeda in Afghanistan, and Canada did send in troupes. However, with the bulk of Canada's ground forces in Afghanistan there wasn't enough left to send to Iraq. Canada had its frigates and destroyers protect U.S. aircraft carriers during the attack on Iraq, and exchange solders served on U.S. ships during the attack. The Liberal party has gotten in a lot of trouble with their supporters for sending in what they did, and now the politicians are claiming they didn't send anything. Yea, right. Politicians are guilty of double-speak everywhere. At least they didn't send as much as the right-wing Alliance party would have.

There were many demonstrations in Brittan against their participation in Iraq. The Labour party has lost support of their voters over this. The accusation is that Tony Blair is the puppet of Washington, and that the U.S. is treating the U.K. as the 51st state. The Canadian reaction is to laugh; the U.S. has been treating Canada as the 51st state for many years. We love our neighbour and big brother, but respect for Canada is sorely missing. We have been abused for many years and it is becoming more starkly obvious in George W.?s administration. So our reaction to the U.K. is ?we told you so?, or ?welcome to the club?.

Do the Iraqi people not understand democracy? That could very well be. Democracy has been called Advanced Citizenship. It takes a lot of participation by the citizens, and that means a very good education system. I would argue the education system in the U.S. is just barely enough to maintain a democracy. How many politicians in the U.S. slide by with mud-slinging campaigns or crap about ?character?, and completely avoid saying anything about policies or issues? In Canada, Kim Campbell tried to avoid talking about issues during an election and focus on ?character?; Canadians considered that to be the final straw and destroyed her party. In Iraq they may not have sufficient education to support democracy. If the people decide on a monarchy or theocracy then that is their decision. This is what I mean when I say they may choose something you don?t like. Freedom must start from within; if it is imposed then it isn?t freedom at all. The riots and looting indicate that a strong hand is necessary to maintain peace within the country; that may mean democracy as we know it in North America may not work there. Imposing an education system sufficient to support a western-style democracy would be just another form of imposing our system upon them; it would not be freedom. Democracy can never work unless it starts with free choice.

Palomar · 2003-12-16 12:29:02

France and Germany stayed out of Iraq, so Canadians don't feel isolated.

*I meant isolated from other (primarily if not entirely) English-speaking nations with strong ties in the past to England.

Here's a voice of opposition from the U.S. Congress:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....rmott_3

Robert: "There were many demonstrations in Brittan against their participation in Iraq. The Labour party has lost support of their voters over this. The accusation is that Tony Blair is the puppet of Washington, and that the U.S. is treating the U.K. as the 51st state."

*Let's not forget that the British Royals (and other bigshots) in the UK refer sneeringly to Blair as "President Blair."

Robert: "If the people decide on a monarchy or theocracy then that is their decision. This is what I mean when I say they may choose something you don?t like. Freedom must start from within; if it is imposed then it isn?t freedom at all. ...Democracy can never work unless it starts with free choice."

*I understand this. What I'm saying is that Mulahs grabbing a bunch of guns and pointing them at their people and TELLING them they WILL accept their theocratic rule ISN'T a free choice either.

I doubt the Iraqis will have a choice in anything, unless the concept of democracy/liberty is explained to them and they are allowed to vote on it...and the vote is honored. I can dream I suppose...

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2003-12-16 12:45:52

France and Germany stayed out of Iraq, so Canadians don't feel isolated.
*I mean isolated from other (primarily if not entirely) English-speaking nations with strong ties in the past to England.

Not really. Canada sees itself as part of the industrialized free world, not just part of the spawns of England. After all, we are still part of the British Commonwealth, but we are also part of the French-speaking group of countries. France is as much a parent of Canada as is England. Our "father" country joined the war in Iraq but our "mother" country stayed out. And now our "father" country is having the same trouble with the consequences of that decision as we have had for many years: Washington thinks they can dictate every tiny little policy. What happened to "Rule Britannia"? I could mention the trade disputes and how Washington is trying to dictate domestic policy within Canada.

Did you know that the one and only cow in Canada that had B.S.E. has been traced to its origin? It came from the U.S. There are now people in Canada who think the infected cow was sent deliberately as an excuse to create the beef ban and support American farmers. Even if it wasn't deliberate, the fact the only infected animal came from the U.S. means the U.S. cannot justify banning Canadian beef. Oh well, the beef packing plants (slaughter houses) in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and north-western Ontario have been closed for years; farmers had exported live animals to the U.S. to be slaughtered and their meet sent back to Canada. Maybe this will force the industry to build a beef packing plant to serve this large area of Canada. Keep those jobs in Canada.

Palomar · 2003-12-16 13:06:35

Robert: "Washington thinks they can dictate every tiny little policy. What happened to "Rule Britannia"?"

*Are you implying you'd like to see the British Empire rise and rule again? Just curious. Their rule wasn't so wonderful either, if I recall correctly.

Robert: Did you know that the one and only cow in Canada that had B.S.E. has been traced to its origin? It came from the U.S. There are now people in Canada who think the infected cow was sent deliberately as an excuse to create the beef ban and support American farmers.

*I suppose anything is possible, but to be really honest: This strikes me as paranoid. I'd be amazed to hear British farmers hatching conspiracy theories with the U.S. as the culprit regarding the horrific outbreak of hoof-and-mooth (or foot-and-mouth) disease they were blighted with in the spring of 2002 (?).

In a conversational way, I am surprised at how suddenly the U.S. is perceived as The Evil Empire by virtually everyone. A mere 4 years ago things seemed rather "hunkey-dorey" on the international front. And we sure seemed like Everyone's Friend (or strongly considered so...at least by the majority of Westerners) until the fall of the USSR.

What is the genesis of this sudden about-face? Sure, I have no doubt some of it is our fault and a lot of it is Dubya's fault. It's multifactorial no doubt.

How much of this is connected to the fall of the USSR, I wonder? No more Mega-Power Arch-Rivals...just 1 lone superpower now and a bunch of kooky 3rd-world wannabes.

The US I knew (from within and from criticism without) and what I see/hear today is very different. On a positive note, a few weeks ago I had a dream that it was 1977 again -- lots of sunshine, running barefoot with friends into the local "Ben Franklin 5-and-Dime" store, all these heavy adult cares totally gone. Feeling totally carefree and drenched in sunshine...it was a lovely dream/memory.

Sorry for the digression.

Okay, what's up with all this? Theories?

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2003-12-16 13:32:16

Part of it is the internet making global opinions known. Canada was shocked at Brittan for the Falklands war. We thought major industrial powers didn't go directly to war any more, they sent covert operatives to stir-up trouble. The U.S. went to war against Granada, a country that didn't attack anyone, they just chose a political system that Ronald Regan didn't like. To America's credit, the U.S. Senate at the time did not approve the invasion of Granada. But how did Ronald Regan go to war against Granada without Congressional approval? Isn?t it part of the U.S. federal constitution that it?s Congress that has the power to declare war? (It?s actually Article I, Section 8.)

Now we have a strong free trade agreement with the U.S. (NAFTA) and our economy has shifted so much that each province does more trade with the U.S. than other provinces. Even though our largest trading partner by far had an economic slump, the Canadian economic policies ensured we had continued growth. Our growth slowed, but not too badly. Then the U.S. government noticed this and decided to damage our economy so we don?t make them look bad, and so they can take business away from us to support their own industries. They blatantly violated the NAFTA with soft-wood lumber, grain, dairy, berries from Quebec, and yes beef. As soon as we do well, Washington decides to ignore the rules, ignore free trade and slam down our economy.

Well, Canada isn?t perfect. There are a lot of things better in Canada than the U.S., but there are other things better in the U.S. I?m still a wanna-be aerospace entrepreneur. The Canadian Space Agency doesn?t have many contracts and what there are tend to go to established companies. Perhaps I should focus on moving to the U.S. so I can found a company there. But to move to the U.S. to found a company, immigration wants to see $10 million US funds; I?m not a millionaire.

Alt2War · 2003-12-16 15:21:50

It is good that Saddam has been captured.

Early reports say Saddam may not see a trial until some time next year, perhaps longer.

The US is not one bit safer now that Saddam is Captured.

Violence in Iraq will continue.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-12-14 06:37:16

Re: Saddam Captured - Alive!

#2 2003-12-14 19:09:30

Re: Saddam Captured - Alive!

#3 2003-12-14 19:49:47

Re: Saddam Captured - Alive!

#4 2003-12-14 21:25:03

Re: Saddam Captured - Alive!

#5 2003-12-14 23:08:06

Re: Saddam Captured - Alive!

#6 2003-12-15 10:41:40

Re: Saddam Captured - Alive!

#7 2003-12-15 13:05:03

Re: Saddam Captured - Alive!

#8 2003-12-15 14:24:09

Re: Saddam Captured - Alive!

#9 2003-12-15 15:47:52

Re: Saddam Captured - Alive!

#10 2003-12-15 16:49:15

Re: Saddam Captured - Alive!

#11 2003-12-15 16:59:21

Re: Saddam Captured - Alive!

#12 2003-12-16 10:50:29

Re: Saddam Captured - Alive!

#13 2003-12-16 11:41:50

Re: Saddam Captured - Alive!

#14 2003-12-16 12:26:01

Re: Saddam Captured - Alive!

#15 2003-12-16 12:29:02

Re: Saddam Captured - Alive!

#16 2003-12-16 12:45:52

Re: Saddam Captured - Alive!

#17 2003-12-16 13:06:35

Re: Saddam Captured - Alive!

#18 2003-12-16 13:32:16

Re: Saddam Captured - Alive!

#19 2003-12-16 15:21:50

Re: Saddam Captured - Alive!

Board footer