Please note that new user registrations disabled at this time.

US forces capture Saddam near Tikrit

Anything goes... just keep it clean.
User avatar
Xandax
Posts: 14151
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2000 12:00 pm
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Post by Xandax »

Re: Way ta go!!
Originally posted by zman
Yes!! Way to go guys. You are correct to be suspicious of everything the U.S. government does because our elected officials have nothing but a sinister agenda, they are out to get you!! They are evil!!

You go guys, fight the machine.



Sheesh I feel like I'm in the 60's all over again, mabye you people should restart the sds or some crazy organization like that. What happened, the MAN put you down? Too much CORPORATE CAPITALISM for you?


Well - I'd rather have people being suspecious then accepting all things handed to them as real/valid.

It is all about thinking for one self and not trusting everything that the media and/or Goverment(s) throw out. If you don't think that they have agendas you live with a naive perspective imo.

The US goverment will try to use this as jusitification for the war - although it was all about the WMD before hand - not that I care much about that one anyway. I think it was good that they could remove this person from their power. It was something similar that needed to be done on the road to WW2 in Nazi Germany.

Secondly - the medias have many agendas - they are buisness and work as such.
Insert signature here.
User avatar
smass
Posts: 632
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2002 10:54 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by smass »

@zman - don't waste your breathe.

Sym is kind of like being in college again - I think I was the lone conservative political science major in my university in the mid 1980s. Sym ain't much different. ;)

Anyone have a comment on where and how he was found? Talk about surrendering with a whimper - where was all the gun blazing and fight to the death rhetoric? Didn't surprise me really - a bully like Sadamm becomes a lamb when he is cornered.
Check out Mirrors Online a premier NWN2 roleplaying persistent world and D20 campaign world publishing project.
User avatar
The Z
Posts: 4451
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 7:42 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by The Z »

Isn't Saddam being tried by the Iraqi War Tribunal?
"It's not whether you get knocked down, it's if you get back up."
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

Re: Way ta go!!
Originally posted by zman
Sheesh I feel like I'm in the 60's all over again, mabye you people should restart the sds or some crazy organization like that. What happened, the MAN put you down? Too much CORPORATE CAPITALISM for you?


LOL! A specific instance equates to a general belief. So a belief that the Bush administration's involvement in Iraq acts as a means of securing oil contracts automatically translates into both a belief that this was their sole intent, and a hatred of all corporations, and capitalism, itself. By this logic, my dislike of ABBA translates into a hatred of rock, and my disgust at Britney Spears means I'm a misogynst. Wait til I tell my wife! Thanks for clearing that up! :D
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
Gwalchmai
Posts: 6252
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 11:00 am
Location: This Quintessence of Dust
Contact:

Post by Gwalchmai »

Originally posted by smass
Anyone have a comment on where and how he was found? Talk about surrendering with a whimper - where was all the gun blazing and fight to the death rhetoric? Didn't surprise me really - a bully like Sadamm becomes a lamb when he is cornered.
That was kinda a wimpy way he was captured. But I think going out in a blaze of glory only really happens in the movies. I’m also very proud of the coalition forces, who were able to conduct the capture with so little violence. I’m glad that he was captured alive so that he can stand before a fair trial, something his regime denied to so many. I am very happy that the coalition forces did not chain him to a truck and drag him through the streets. I just wish that he had been captured earlier. I think many more lives could have been spared.
That there; exactly the kinda diversion we coulda used.
User avatar
Aegis
Posts: 13412
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2000 12:00 pm
Location: Soviet Canuckistan
Contact:

Post by Aegis »

Re: Re: Way ta go!!
Originally posted by fable
LOL! A specific instance equates to a general belief. So a belief that the Bush administration's involvement in Iraq acts as a means of securing oil contracts automatically translates into both a belief that this was their sole intent, and a hatred of all corporations, and capitalism, itself. By this logic, my dislike of ABBA translates into a hatred of rock, and my disgust at Britney Spears means I'm a misogynst. Wait til I tell my wife! Thanks for clearing that up! :D
The Babylonian God strikes again :D

@Smass: Well, I think a lot of people were expecting that when Saddam was to be caught, it would be in a similar event like that as he suns. Full out conflict, glans blazing, and, well, some bullet ridden bodies.

What can you expect though? For years he has always had others do his dirty work for him.
User avatar
RandomThug
Posts: 2795
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:00 am
Location: Nowheresville
Contact:

Post by RandomThug »

A great thing. Potentially I believe this grants America a little credibility. Sure the reasons we went Into Iraq were tainted, something we claimed we could do (In which most people believed we couldn't) we did. We hunted down and caught a man who used terror to fight wars. Remember our goal isnt to just get rid of the 9/11 bandits. Its a war on Terror. We knew we could take Iraq/Hussien in 1/10th of the time it would take to stop a group like Al Queda. I find this as a great thing, perhaps other countries (including our own accepting it) will come in to aid. Perhaps more countries will hunt down Osama. Usama whateevr.


I say give him a Trial, let all guilt be spoken. Then take CM's advice and get budwieser to sponser it on pay per view. Bullet to brain.
Jackie Treehorn: People forget the brain is the biggest sex organ.
The Dude: On you maybe.
User avatar
VonDondu
Posts: 3185
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by VonDondu »

Originally posted by smass
Anyone have a comment on where and how he was found? Talk about surrendering with a whimper - where was all the gun blazing and fight to the death rhetoric? Didn't surprise me really - a bully like Sadamm becomes a lamb when he is cornered.
As much as we like to think that Saddam Hussein is a "monster", he is, after all, just a human being. I know that some people think that we're not supposed to regard "monsters" as human beings, so if my comments offend you, please skip over this post.

The idea that a notorious "monster" like Saddam would put up the fight of his life when he was cornered is a quaint, romantic notion, but it's not realistic. Human beings are not storybook characters. Reality is always so much more grimy and pathetic than we imagine it to be.

I'm not surprised that Saddam was dishevelled, disoriented, and ready to give up. Saddam is a tired old man. Not only did he look like a homeless person, he was a homeless person. His old, secure life was gone, and he was reduced to a state in which he constantly worried about his own survival. Don't forget, this is a man who was accustomed to almost inhuman luxury, and he was reduced to sleeping in cars and hiding in holes. I can imagine that living that way practically put him into a state of shock. Please don't think I'm trying to sympathize with him. The truth is, I wish the soldiers had thrown a grenade into his "spider hole" (in reality, that almost happened). I'm just trying to understand the state he was in when he was captured.

I'm also not surprised that he didn't throw his life away in a futile gunfight. I'm aware that Saddam extolled the virtues of other people's sacrifices. But you would have to be incredibly naive to believe that everyone who wants other people to make sacrifices is willing to sacrifice his own life, even for the same cause. Take a look at any leader who sends his soldiers into battle while he remains safe inside his own palace behind his bodyguards. Besides, Saddam is a narcissist and just isn't capable of sacrificing himself for anything.

There's also one other thing to take into account. Most people who are willing to martyr themselves are fundamentalists who submit to something higher than themselves. Saddam is not a fanatic; he is a secularist. And obviously, he would never submit to anything higher than himself, because in his mind, there's nothing higher than himself.

Now, don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way, but here's the way I think that Saddam perceives himself. He doesn't think that he has ever done anything wrong. You know the old saying, "Necessity is the tyrant's plea"? Look at Saddam's defense for his own actions: "I did what had to be done." And what's more, he got away with it. Surely this has some effect on his thinking. So when he was captured, he probably figured (if he was thinking clearly, or as clearly as he ever thinks) that no harm will come to him; after all, in his own mind he believes that he is "innocent" and he believes that he will be vindicated. If that makes him a madman, I won't argue with you, but I rack it up to extreme narcissism and a moral compass that always puts him in the right (in his own mind) no matter how atrocious his actions are.

I think there's also one other reason why he feels safe in American hands. As some of you have already pointed out, Saddam was regarded as an ally before he invaded Kuwait. He actually believed that the U.S. wouldn't mind if he invaded Kuwait; he thought that he had cleared it with the American ambassador. I don't think he's the only person who had trouble believing that he could be our "friend" one day and "the new Hitler" the next day. I suspect that he was never able to comprehend that. And he probably believed that his old friends who turned on him and ostracized him were completely hypocritical, if not insincere. I wouldn't be surprised if he felt, "I don't believe this is happening. You people are insane." And that sentiment, coupled with his self-righteousness, led him to believe that there would always be a way out for him--even when he was captured.

If that's the case, then sure, Saddam Hussein is irrational. But if that's the case, it's not too hard to understand the condition he was in when he was captured.
User avatar
Aegis
Posts: 13412
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2000 12:00 pm
Location: Soviet Canuckistan
Contact:

Post by Aegis »

Well, we're not denying that it's not a good thing he's been captured, as he was a dictator, and all. It's just that the American Government is trying to shift the focus from the fact they invaded illegally, and found nothing of what they sought.
User avatar
RandomThug
Posts: 2795
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:00 am
Location: Nowheresville
Contact:

Post by RandomThug »

Aegis I guess two things can be done, complain about something in an attempt to get people to be accountable. Or look at it in the eyes of means to an end. Either way thier still just going to do whatever they want.
Jackie Treehorn: People forget the brain is the biggest sex organ.
The Dude: On you maybe.
User avatar
Georgi
Posts: 11288
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Can't wait to get on the road again...
Contact:

Post by Georgi »

Originally posted by smass
Anyone have a comment on where and how he was found?
Of course. :)

Fox News reporter Greg Palkot, looking around Saddam's room, found a packet of pants. "This is Saddam Hussein's underwear, unwrapped and unused," he reported.

I think the question that needs to be asked here, is was Saddam going commando, or had he just not changed his pants for a very long time? :eek: Talk about your human rights abuses...
Who, me?!?
User avatar
VonDondu
Posts: 3185
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by VonDondu »

I sincerely hope that Iraq will become more peaceful now that Saddam Hussein has been captured (which removes any possibility that he will ever return to power). But honestly, I don't see why that has to be the case.

To address this issue, we need to look at the reason why "coalition" forces are being attacked. Shortly after the coalition achieved military supremacy in Iraq (I would hardly call it "complete subjugation"), our fearless leaders told us that the only people resisting us were "terrorists". Some of these so-called "terrorists" are supposedly citizens of other countries who have come to Iraq to fight us just because they "hate freedom". The American media bought that story for a while (at least, that's the way they reported it), so I guess the majority of Americans believed it. But let's look at the consequences. If the "terrorists" are fighting against us because they don't want us to bring "freedom" to Iraq, then why would they stop fighting just because we captured Saddam Hussein?

The more recent view of the attackers is that they are "insurgents" who are "loyal to Saddam", and they have been fighting us because they wanted to put Saddam back in power. I suppose that capturing Saddam will put an end to their hopes, and perhaps some of them will stop fighting. But I'm worried that's not the case.

See, the definition of "insurgent" is "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government". If America can legimitately (in the eyes of the Iraqis) claim to be "the civil authority in Iraq" or "the established government of Iraq", that's news to me. What we're dealing with are not "rebels" or "insurgents", but rather "Iraqis who think that it was wrong for America to invade their country and who want America to get out and stay out". At this point, Saddam Hussein has little to do with that, so I'm afraid that his capture might not make much difference to the, er, "Iraqi freedom fighters". (cough, cough) I don't think that even the Iraqis who most wanted to be liberated from Saddam Hussein want the Americans to be the new "civil authority". I'm not sure exactly what "the Iraqi people" want (as if they are cohesive enough to want the same things in the first place). But I think it's pretty clear that a lot of the Iraqis don't want us to be in their country, whether Saddam Hussein is dead, alive, or on trial.

I guess we'll see.
User avatar
Yshania
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Some Girls Wander By Mistake
Contact:

Post by Yshania »

Just a few random thoughts...

1. Saddam was quoted as saying something along the lines of he would always save the last bullet for himself...he was found with a loaded pistol, why did he surrender? Would he have been the martyr had he taken his own life?...

2. Wouldn't it have been easier on those in power (who might be worrying about what Saddam could reveal in court) to have just taken him out there and then? Either the marine, who lifted the carpet covering his pit, could have stated self defence, or suicide...

3. *If* Saddam had committed suicide, would there *really* have been remaining unanswered questions?...

4. Why the public statement of the find? *If* the western Governments were really concerned about any political fallout over Saddams testimony, don't you think they (the West) have the resources to find him, and just cause him to "disappear"? This way they could still get their answers - maybe...whilst avoiding the public show...

5. Where is he to be tried? Where will they find impartial judges? Should he be tried in Iraq, then found guilty, IIRC military offenders are put before a firing squad...would/could he be tried elsewhere? What will this achieve? Especially considering the UK, despite their involvement and support, do not condone capital punishment. This will be an interesting one...

6. Could this public announcement "we have got him" be a distraction from the search for Bin Laden? A promise *to* Bin Laden? or indeed just some spin in advance of upcoming elections?

<edit> excuse my cynicism...might there *still* be a suicide? ;)

Just thinking out loud :)
Parachute for sale, like new! Never opened!
Guinness, black goes with everything.
User avatar
Delacroix
Posts: 458
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Brasil/RJ
Contact:

Post by Delacroix »

:) its very good to know that a lunatic has been caugh(too bad it ll help another to be reelected).

I am quite surprised that he is alive. Seriously, i could be certainly that in the same conditions he would be executated.

Some of you were asking what to do about him. The question is interesting. Of course depends on what will be the acusation. What was the crime, where was the crime and against who, are the main points of the jurisdiction. The questions are not easy.

Certainly, lots of courts in jurisdiction personality will claim the legitimity to judge him.

Some opinions:
An American Court - Very tipical that the judges are the winners of a war. But what would be the crime, that happens in USA against americans? Iirc it was a crime of danger. To be honest, the theory is a flaw. Antecipated Legitime Defense. That was the theorical basis of the war, atack something that is potentially dangerous before the proof that it is potentially dangerous(WMD).
The crime, against USA is imo what is called a crime of damage to tranquility.
The problem is that without the WMD, the thing went down, there is no actual motivation on acuse him.

An International Court - The international comunity was splitted. And the majority of it was against the war, this alone, create a very strange problem of personality of the court.
But the crime here can be more open, since we are talking about an international jurisdiction, the crimes against the human rights that happens in Saddam's Iraq could be under the jurisdiction. What means that the crime, here, would not be of danger(or damage to tranquility), but a much more consistant one since Iraq's people can protected by an international court.
Still, i think that the personality of the international comunity isnt clear in the particular case... especially because ONU was against the act.

Iraq's Jurisdiction - Of course, i am talking here about the Iraq after Saddam. The crime here is clear. Where it happens is obvious and so against who. Crime against human rights in Iraq, against all citzens. Here the ways of jurisdiction seem perfect. A people, that for an alien purpose, had an abrupt change in the government ways and form, and now are away from Saddam power. They can claim the real ligitemated jurisdiction to acuse and judge. Unfortunally they didnt caugh Saddam by themselfs(what would make the perfection of the Court), but i guess they couldnt do it alone.
And, the most important imo, only(i mean ONLY) a guilty sentence from an Iraq jurisdiction will justify the war. Much more than any arsenal of WMD, that sentence willl justify it ... for me , at least. Only that way i will see the freedom i doubt so much.
[Sorry about my English]

Ps: I'm "Ivan Cavallazzi".

Lurker(0.50). : )
User avatar
Silur
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Home of the straw men
Contact:

Post by Silur »

WMD's found!

Hej, we found 'em. Saddy's shorts were so dirty from living in a cave they could kill a squirrel at ten feet. That counts, right?

;)
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
User avatar
Silur
Posts: 907
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Home of the straw men
Contact:

Post by Silur »

Jokes aside...

Getting Saddam was secondary. The primary reason for invading Iraq was to find WMDs. The current spin, however, seems to try to make the capture into a key point - probably to cover the utter failure to produce any evidence of WMDs.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations David Friedman
User avatar
smass
Posts: 632
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2002 10:54 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by smass »

....yet...
Check out Mirrors Online a premier NWN2 roleplaying persistent world and D20 campaign world publishing project.
User avatar
Ode to a Grasshopper
Posts: 6664
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Ode to a Grasshopper »

Re: Way ta go!!
Originally posted by zman
Yes!! Way to go guys. You are correct to be suspicious of everything the U.S. government does because our elected officials have nothing but a sinister agenda, they are out to get you!! They are evil!!

Sheesh I feel like I'm in the 60's all over again, mabye you people should restart the sds or some crazy organization like that. What happened, the MAN put you down? Too much CORPORATE CAPITALISM for you?
What elected officials?

Image
Proud SLURRite Gunner of the Rolling Thunder (TM) - Visitors WELCOME!
([size=0]Feel free to join us for a drink, play some pool or even relax in a hottub - want to learn more?[/size]

The soul must be free, whatever the cost.
User avatar
dragon wench
Posts: 19609
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
Contact:

Post by dragon wench »

Interestingly... this story, just published in the NYT today, aired on the Canadian news (CBC) in the midst of the war....

Rumsfeld Made Iraq Overture in '84 Despite Chemical Raids
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS

WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 — As a special envoy for the Reagan administration in 1984, Donald H. Rumsfeld, now the defense secretary, traveled to Iraq to persuade officials there that the United States was eager to improve ties with President Saddam Hussein despite his use of chemical weapons, newly declassified documents show.

Mr. Rumsfeld, who ran a pharmaceutical company at the time, was tapped by Secretary of State George P. Shultz to reinforce a message that a recent move to condemn Iraq's use of chemical weapons was strictly in principle and that America's priority was to prevent an Iranian victory in the Iran-Iraq war and to improve bilateral ties.

During that war, the United States secretly provided Iraq with combat planning assistance, even after Mr. Hussein's use of chemical weapons was widely known. The highly classified program involved more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who shared intelligence on Iranian deployments, bomb-damage assessments and other crucial information with Iraq.

The disclosures round out a picture of American outreach to the Iraqi government, even as the United States professed to be neutral in the eight-year war, and suggests a private nonchalance toward Mr. Hussein's use of chemicals in warfare. Mr. Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials have cited Iraq's use of poisonous gas as a main reason for ousting Mr. Hussein.

The documents, which were released as part of a declassification project by the National Security Archive, and are available on the Web at [url]http://www.nsarchive.org,[/url] provide details of the instructions given to Mr. Rumsfeld on his second trip to Iraq in four months. The notes of Mr. Rumsfeld's encounter with Tariq Aziz, the foreign minister, remain classified, but officials acknowledged that it would be unusual if Mr. Rumsfeld did not carry out the instructions.

Since the release of the documents, he has told members of his inner circle at the Pentagon that he does not recall whether he had read, or even had received, the State Department memo, Defense Department officials said.

One official noted that the documents reflected the State Department's thinking on Iraq, but did not indicate Mr. Rumsfeld's planning for his meeting with Mr. Hussein nor his comments on the meeting after its conclusion.

Mr. Rumsfeld's trip was his second visit to Iraq. On his first visit, in late December 1983, he had a cordial meeting with Mr. Hussein, and photographs and a report of that encounter have been widely published.

In a follow-up memo, the chief of the American interests section reported that Mr. Aziz had conveyed Mr. Hussein's satisfaction with the meeting. "The Iraqi leadership was extremely pleased with Amb. Rumsfeld's visit," the memo said. "Tariq Aziz had gone out of his way to praise Rumsfeld as a person."

When news emerged last year of the December trip, Mr. Rumsfeld told CNN that he had "cautioned" Mr. Hussein to forgo chemical weapons. But when presented with declassified notes of their meeting that made no mention of that, a spokesman for Mr. Rumsfeld said he had raised the issue in a meeting with Mr. Aziz.

Lawrence Di Rita, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said on Friday that there was no inconsistency between Mr. Rumsfeld's previous comments on his missions to Iraq and the State Department documents.

By early 1984, events threatened to upset the American-Iraqi relationship. After pleading for a year for international action against the chemical warfare, Iran had finally persuaded the United Nations to criticize the use of chemical weapons, albeit in vague terms.

Pressure mounted on the Reagan administration, which had already verified Iraq's "almost daily" use of the weapons against Iran and against Kurdish rebels, documents show. In February, Iraq warned Iranian "invaders" that "for every harmful insect there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it." Within weeks, the American authorities intercepted precursor chemicals that were bound for Iraq. Finally, on March 5, the United States issued a public condemnation of Iraq.

But days later, Mr. Shultz and his deputy met with an Iraqi diplomat, Ismet Kittani, to soften the blow. The American relationship with Iraq was too important — involving business interests, Middle East diplomacy and a shared determination to thwart Iran — to sacrifice. Mr. Kittani left the meeting "unpersuaded," documents show.

Mr. Shultz then turned to Mr. Rumsfeld. In a March 24 briefing document, Mr. Rumsfeld was asked to present America's bottom line. At first, the memo recapitulated Mr. Shultz's message to Mr. Kittani, saying it "clarified that our CW [chemical weapons] condemnation was made strictly out of our strong opposition to the use of lethal and incapacitating CW, wherever it occurs." The American officials had "emphasized that our interests in 1) preventing an Iranian victory and 2) continuing to improve bilateral relations with Iraq, at a pace of Iraq's choosing, remain undiminished," it said.

Then came the instructions for Mr. Rumsfeld: "This message bears reinforcing during your discussions."

The American relationship with Iraq during its crippling war with Iran was rife with such ambiguities. Though the United States was outwardly neutral, it tilted toward Iraq and even monitored talks toward the sale of military equipment by private American contractors.

Tom Blanton, executive director of the National Security Archive, said: "Saddam had chemical weapons in the 1980's, and it didn't make any difference to U.S. policy."

Mr. Blanton suggested that the United States was now paying the price for earlier indulgence. "The embrace of Saddam in the 1980's and what it emboldened him to do should caution us as Americans that we have to look closely at all our murky alliances," he said. "Shaking hands with dictators today can turn them into Saddams tomorrow
Spoiler
testingtest12
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Spoiler
testingtest12
.......All those moments ... will be lost ... in time ... like tears in rain.
User avatar
Aegis
Posts: 13412
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2000 12:00 pm
Location: Soviet Canuckistan
Contact:

Post by Aegis »

With all the information becoming declassified, it strikes me merely as an attempt by the American government to come clean, before Saddam tells the world. the disturbing thing, though, is that the world, for the most part, already knew this. I think it was primarly the American people who had been kept in the dark :o

However this plays out, I'm really curious to see how the World judges the American's involvement.
Post Reply