America did NOT capture Saddam Hussein...

[MichaeltheGreat]

To get one particular greasy little mother****ing murderer.

[Pekka]

MtG, exactly. Plus, if Kurds did in fact catch him first, that's kind of a victory to the allied forces, which are lead by the US, so it's not so far fetched to say that even if so, the US captured Saddam. It doesn't matter who the individual was who first touched Saddam. And even if Kurds did it single handedly, it doesn't matter. Kudos to them. But it's a good time to get little feel good going on, so why not take the opportunity? It's not like the US didn't do a thing about it. If it wasn't for the US, Saddam would be still free. It was a little part, the actual capture in the whole process.

Let's say I was interested in the fee for catching Saddam. I'd get into my Susie Q and bust his bunker with it. Knock him out cold with outstanding over right hand and carry the slobby punk into the backseat and drive him to the nearest US base. What would the headlines read? It would read 'Saddam captured!' like it read with this case too. And the US would get credit for it, but hey, they should. I'd collect my fee and get myself to the Bahamas and not worry about if they didn't mention my name. Better that way anyway, wouldn't want 10 000 old loyal Saddamists to chase me.

[Alexander's Horse]

Of course Saddam wasn't captured - he was having a makeover

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
To get one particular greasy little mother****ing murderer.

How do you know he is a murderer? Is it not innocent until proven guilty.

After the first gulf war, there was an internal insurrection in Iraq, a country whose borders are generally accepted I would think. That insurrection was stamped out by use of force, and presumably 300.000 died, although this is hardly confirmed. Where is the crime in that? What international crime has been breached here?

Also there was an insurrection in the north where 4.500 Kurds were gassed. Is this a crime? To stamp out insurrection.

I remember that Bush specifically laid down the ultimatum that Bush and his two sons had to leave the country. So he has his rear covered on that one. However the whole discuusion revolved around the issue of WMD. It was because that Saddam, presumably, would not say whether or not he in fact had WMD. Actually this was flatly denied by the Iiraqi authorities.

Now Saddam has been captured and 20,000 more people are dead, and many will continue to die for many years. This is actually a crime, a violation of international law.

Then you add the 1.500.000 dead as a result of the embargo. This was done through legal means too.

[Sava]

Originally posted by skywalker

ignorance and apathy...

You post a random news article claiming something that's been told by the mainstream media is false (yup, BBC is soooo pro-Bush, isn't it ) and then complain that we are just willing to believe anything as long as it supports our ideology?

what exactly is my ideology? I'd like to know because I don't know... I don't follow an ideology. I don't contribute to political parties... I'm not a member of any interest group.

My ideology is truth. So yes... I post something that supports it.

Do you go around telling people that the sky is blue, the atmosphere contains oxygen and the sun rises in the east?

that's basically what I have to do... btw, the sun doesn't "rise" the earth rotates giving the illusion of "rising" and "setting".

Pekka: don't misunderstand me... I don't care who caught him... I care about a bunch of radical corrupt politicians taking credit for his capture and misleading America for their own political gain. It is wrong for Bush to do it... it would be wrong if Clinton would do it... or Howard Dean... or ANYONE ELSE. The fact that others don't think there's anything wrong with this appauls me.

Or did I say any were "trustworthy?"

your previous statement lead me to think you know of some objective news sources... btw, I think the Christian Science Monitor is trustworthy... generally... I don't necessarily trust CommonDreams.org... which is why I always try to find confirmation from other independent sources. CNN and MSNBC have their uses... but they are corporate conglomerates with definite agendas... both political and ideological, as well as economical. The BBC, PBS, and NPR are the three news sources that have a higher degree of trustworthiness. I read the NYTimes, USAToday, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, and some local papers also... I try to read as much as I can before I form a theory or conclusion. But, when corporate media doesn't report something this newsworthy, I get suspicious.

Even publications like the National Inquirer are somewhat trustworthy. MSNBC's editor in chief Jerry Nachtman said this about the NI, "People mock the NI, but they are generally accurate in their reporting, especially when it comes to celebrities. So many people are looking to sue them, they have to cover their asses."

Is it possible the US caught Saddam? Sure... I'm not saying I'm 100% convinced either way. But knowing the ineptitude of the US intelligence community, and the lack of effective human intelligence, I suspect it's more likely the Kurds did pull this off. It did happen in the North (Tikrit) where the Kurds have a significant presence. And I do think local groups like the Kurds probably have greater capabilities in finding someone like Saddam.

The US military is an awesome force. Awesome for killing tanks, bombing cities, kicking the **** out of armies... but they SUCK at infiltration... they SUCK at guerilla urban war.

[Kuciwalker]

what exactly is my ideology? I'd like to know because I don't know... I don't follow an ideology. I don't contribute to political parties... I'm not a member of any interest group.
My ideology is truth. So yes... I post something that supports it.

despite all you deny it, you are a democrat (don't give us the "I hate Clinton too" crap). You consistently troll ONLY right-wingers.

[Pekka]

Tripledoc, Uh? You're right that he must be proved to be guilty, but to be realistic that's just a matter of time.
Justice should be blind, but sometimes we need to help justice open it's eyes if the crimes are horrible enough.

The killing of the Kurds, I think if you want to look it that way, using those gasses are crime no matter how you look at it. Justified killings or not.

And the embargo, Saddam could have lifted them at any times stepping out and forgetting about being a bastard he is and a mass murderer. But he wanted to be in power, thus those people are dead. It's no one elses fault than Saddam himself. And look at it, was it worth it? He's now captured... for what? Few years of more dictatorship?

[Pekka]

Sava, dude, no one rocks at guerilla war. That's the whole point of it .

[Fake Boris]

As Sava said, if there is any truth in this, then it is plain wrong.

So assuming it is the Kurds...

And if the US didn't give credit to the Kurds, then there must be a reason. A good one. I suspect they didn't want to piss Turkey, or just wanted to make it their victory, or, as said earlier, feared the Kurds' ties with Tehran.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Pekka
And the embargo, Saddam could have lifted them at any times stepping out and forgetting about being a bastard he is and a mass murderer. But he wanted to be in power, thus those people are dead. It's no one elses fault than Saddam himself. And look at it, was it worth it? He's now captured... for what? Few years of more dictatorship?

Yes, in fifty years from now, when China threatens to embargo the US, I'm sure the president of the time will just resign.

[Pekka]

Oncle Boris, I'm sure that if Kurds captured Saddam, the US will remember it, even if it's not on CNN all the time. Call it silent rewarding if you will.

[Pekka]

Onlce Boris, Yes well.. but the embargo was not put there for no reason. If China has good reasons to put that embargo, and actually make its case so that other countries will follow it, sure why not.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Pekka
Oncle Boris, I'm sure that if Kurds captured Saddam, the US will remember it, even if it's not on CNN all the time. Call it silent rewarding if you will.

That, I'm sure.
They gave them some sort of political reward and bough their silence.

[Ted Striker]

no no he is right, USA did not capture Saddam

it was actually 2Pac and Elvis

[Tripledoc]

Has there not yet been made an official dossier where the coalition specifically points out what crimes Saddam has done?

And is Saddam the only one being accused? He must have had officers and bureaucrats who were following orders. As it was shown in the Eichman trial it is not an excuse to say that one simply followed orders.

Then Saddam might have been in breach of Iraqi law. However would that be an excuse for actually invading the country?