Saddam Hussein arrested

Originally posted by Satyr
Great! Now maybe we can get back to trying to find the real enemies, eh?

Like O.J. Simpson looking for the "real" killers.

Hey All,

I think Fullcrum is missing the point here about whether the U.S. was justified in invading Iraq. First of all, WMD's were only ONE reason for invasion. Bush actually had THREE reasons. IMO, even ONE reason was enough to invade. But anyway's here they are:

1. Saddam has unaccounted for WMD's that he could use or sell to terrorist organizations.
2. There is evidence suggesting Saddam is aiding al qaeda or other organizations, thus making him a target in the war on terror.
3. He tortures and murders his people, making this a legitimate human rights issue.

Fullcrum, you are right that we haven't found any hard undeniable evidence for WMD's. But I'll come back to that. First, I'll touch on the other TWO reasons.

2. So was Saddam in any way or form aiding terrorist? The answer is yes. There have been documents found that link Saddam and Mohammad Atta (however u spell it) of al qaeda in the last couple days, as reported by NBC. Also, there were terrorist training camps found in the northeast (i think it was that area) area of Iraq. "But SimpleTruth!" fullcrum says, "Osama and Saddam hate eachother!" Maybe fullcrum. But wouldn't this established reputation that they hate eachother, hide a secret relationship that benefits BOTH of them? HMM?? And what if they really DO hate eachother? So what? Enemies have been known to ally in the past temporarily if they have common goals. So, this reason ALONE justifies our attack on Saddam and his cronies since they harbored terrorists. This was CLEARLY stated by Bush as his war criteria. Moving on........

3. You, my friendly little fullcrum, and all you other doubters, cannot deny the human rights violations that Saddam is guilty of. Mass graves, endless testimonies of Iraqi citizens and journalists alike, torture methods exposed by documents and video. Ever hear of plastic grating machines used to grate humans instead? The list goes on. All of these point to his brutality and irresponsiblity as a pathetic and evil leader. So this should be validation enough to take Saddam out. "But SimpleTruth!" fullcrum says, "We have no right to invade a sovereign nation! It is their OWN decision on how the nation works!" Tsk tsk fullcrum. The sovereignty of who? Saddam and his murderers! The rest of the 99.5 % of people have NO say in what happens. Or at least, they used to have no say. If you're worried about sovereignty, well you should be happy, cuz we just delivered it to the people of Iraq! This reason should be enough for anyone to have invaded, if you care one iota about human rights.

1. Now lets come back to this reason of WMD's. Fullcrum, you are upset we haven't found any. This statement is true, but in itself is irrelevant. "How is that SimpleTruth?" Fullcrum asks, becoming more and more awed by the logic and truth that I'm sharing with you. Well, Fullcrum, I'll tell you. Regardless if he had any or not, he violated the U.N. agreement to account for any and all weapons he is KNOWN to have had a decade earlier. Everyone knows this. He HAD chemical weapons as he used them on the Kurds in Gulf War I. Now Fullcrum, if he didn't have any weapons, and he had politely disposed of them, then all he had to do was account for the weapons and provide evidence of disarming and/or destroying them. HE DID NOT DO THIS! It was in HIS hands to control whether he got his ass kicked or not. By NOT accounting for the weapons, he violated the UN treaty, and broken war agreements made from Gulf War I! This alone, is grounds to invade and make SURE he didn't have them. He broke a pact made from the prior war. Now, Fullcrum, ask yourself this: "Gee, why would Saddam NOT provide evidence and account for the weapons he was KNOWN to have at one point?" Well, Fullcrum, there are a few possibilities. He wanted to keep them and so HID them to use them on down the road sometime, or he had ALREADY SOLD them to enemies of the U.S. and therefore was UNABLE to account for them, OR he was retarded and actually DID destroy them, but he just forgot to show the UN. HMMM. Either way, it's HIS fault that he didn't show proof! Since he didn't show it, we had to assume that he STILL had some, and therefore, WE HAD THE RIGHT TO INVADE AND BRING HIM DOWN! BOOYA! Damn, I'm good!!!.......and in time, we STILL might find some of them hidden somewhere!

So there ya have it. Three reasons! Strike one, two, three and Saddam has just struck out ladies and gentlemen!!! And even ONE of them is reason enought to do what we did. Oh and by the way, if Bush really was lying about the WMD's, don't you think we would have "found" some. If he lied, he would have had us plant some and say we found them to cover his nasty lies. But, that didn't happen. Fullcrum, now you can skip off to work tomorrow, because you feel great now that you are wiser and better able to engage the day!

Originally posted by Gazrok
I'm just happy to see that our Intelligence services are finally getting their act together...I was beginning to doubt it... But it's obvious they knew where and how Saddam was moving around for a while, but it was always too little too late.

[size=10]GOOD JOB AGENTS!!!

Supposedly, a family member narked on him. If so, that can hardly be called intelligence work.

Originally posted by SimpleTruth
So was Saddam in any way or form aiding terrorist? The answer is yes. There have been documents found that link Saddam and Mohammad Atta (however u spell it) of al qaeda in the last couple days,as reported by NBC.

The government could not corroborate NBC's claim. They have mentioned some circumstantial evidence and hearsay, but nothing that could serve as a confirmed link, even in the broadest definition.

You...cannot deny the human rights violations that Saddam is guilty of. Mass graves, endless testimonies of Iraqi citizens and journalists alike, torture methods exposed by documents and video. Ever hear of plastic grating machines used to grate humans instead? The list goes on. All of these point to his brutality and irresponsibility as a pathetic and evil leader. So this should be validation enough to take Saddam out...This reason should be enough for anyone to have invaded, if you care one iota about human rights.

What is most disturbing about this is that the US was aware of those atrocities and chose to turn a blind eye to it, in favor of continuing relations with Saddam.

1984 - Rumsfeld returns to Baghdad for meetings with the Iraqi foreign minister on 24 March, the same day that the United Nations (UN) releases a report finding that Iraq is using mustard gas and the nerve agent tabun against Iranian troops.
The US State Department also acknowledges Iraq's actions, releasing a statement on 5 March saying that "available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons."
Nevertheless, full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US are restored in November, allowing the US to provide Iraq with further aid to fight the war.

One former member of the program is quoted as saying the Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of (poisonous) gas. It was just another way of killing people - whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference."

1987 - In the north, the Iraqi Government launches the so-called Anfal campaign against the Kurd dissidents who have aided the Iranians during the war. It is reported that thousands of Kurds are killed when villages are attacked with poison gas.
Overall, an estimated 4,000 villages and towns are razed and hundreds of thousands of Kurds are "cleansed" from the region by forced deportation. Many Kurds flee across the borders with Turkey and Iran. More than 100,000 Kurdish civilians are reported as killed or "disappeared". By the end of 1989 the Kurdish resistance has been crushed.
Despite being aware of Hussein's use of chemical weapons against civilian populations, the US does nothing to curtail its relations with the Iraqi regime, though the tone of the engagement does being to sour"
www.moreorless.au.com...
The US government doesn't care about the Iraqis anymore than Saddam did. If they did, the death of 500,000 children from sanctions would not have been considered "acceptable casualties", we would not have ignored Saddam's torture and murder of thousands of Iraqi civilians in order to continue our collaboration with him. We would not have supplied him with the chemicals and weapons that he used to kill and torture dissidents.
Don't ever forget that the only reason humanitarian efforts are even an issue is because, if they weren't, the US government would have to face the wrath of every country and person that was against the war to begin with. The only reason his approval rating is so high, is because people like to believe that we are in Iraq because our Administration cares what happens to the people over there. Unfortunately, there is far more evidence to the contrary.
.

As for your assertion that the existance or non-existence of WMD's is irrelevant to the validity of the war, that's just absurd. I can't even find the right words to fully illustrate how misled you have truely been, if you believe what you wrote, so I will refrain from making any further remarks on that particular statement..

Originally posted by darklanser

Originally posted by Satyr
Great! Now maybe we can get back to trying to find the real enemies, eh?

Like O.J. Simpson looking for the "real" killers.

O.J.. Real killers..

Hmmm..

Wait!!!

O.J.. WAS and STILL IS THE REAL KILLER!!!

So, I would like to say: Let this be a lesson to all those despots and dictators that have ANY intense business dealings with The Bush Crime Family. First, there was Noreiga and now, look at Saddam.

Stay AWAY from these people. It will only come to your ruin.

(And its funny. Even in capture, Saddam said there were no WMDs)

Colonel Sanders,
Has there not been at least one other administration besides the current and prevevious Bush administration that has used military action against Iraq?

Or was that all just a figment of my repugnant simple minded greedy self centered right winged uneducated imagination?

Originally posted by Seapeople
Colonel Sanders,
Has there not been at least one other administration besides the current and prevevious Bush administration that has used military action against Iraq?

Or was that all just a figment of my repugnant simple minded greedy self centered right winged uneducated imagination?

The only conflicts with Iraq I could find, were all waged by Bush Sr. and Jr.
We were in bed with Saddam from about 1981 into 1990.

In 1989, the State Department released a report that described in gruesome detail Iraq's violation of human rights, specifically how Iraq's President Saddam Hussein tortured his own people for allegedly being disloyal.

But despite the atrocities outlined in the report, which President Bush now refers to when speaking about his desire to remove Hussein from power, the United States, under the first Bush Administration, refused to vote in favor of a United Nations resolution calling for an inquiry into Iraq's treatment of its population and possibly indicting Hussein for war crimes and human rights abuses.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage admitted in 1990 that the Reagan and Bush administrations were well aware of Hussein's brutality, but still, the U.S. was more interested in maintaining a healthy relationship with Iraq because the country's vast oil reserves was beneficial to U.S. interests.

For a comprehensive list of American wars and conflicts see,
www.historyguy.com...

[Edited on 15-12-2003 by jezebel]

fulcrum's pro-saddam. Unbelievable.

[Edited on 15-12-2003 by Thomas Crowne]

As for your assertion that the existance or non-existence of WMD's is irrelevant to the validity of the war, that's just absurd. I can't even find the right words to fully illustrate how misled you have truely been, if you believe what you wrote, so I will refrain from making any further remarks on that particular statement..

Jezebel, did you not comprehend what I was talking about? LOOK, we KNOW that he had WMD's at one point. You obviously believe this because of the sources you cited. After the first Gulf War, the UN, made restrictions on what weapons Saddam could make/have/use. He was to account for his WMD's that he had and from post Gulf War to now, he has FAILED to account for them. LOOK, if he destroyed them, he should have shown someone, if he sold them, he should have said so, if he disabled them, he SHOULD HAVE SHOWM PROOF! HE NEVER DID! So regardless of actually what happened to the weapons, and whether he had ownership of them at the time of invasion, the FACT is he DIDN"T account for them. That's ALL he had to do to avoid armed conflict! Don't you think if he rid himself of them, and WANTED to cooperate, that he would simply comply with inspectors? HE WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE! Can you understand this jezebel? Can you please? It shouldn't be hard. That's what I meant in my previous post. Since he DIDN'T account for them, that means he still had them or KNEW who did have them, and he failed to do so!

Secondly, thanks for citing all those times about the gasing, proving the inhumane conditions. It seems we both agree on that issue. So what are you saying though? Because we never helped out the Kurds before, we shouldn't now? We have a NEW administration, don't we? Would you rather had us side with IRAN in their conflict at that time? Are you serious?! THEY WERE THE AGGRESSORS! Your OWN source states that Iraq attempted to acheive a cease-fire. So at that time, maybe it was more wise to side with Saddam, lesser of two evils. But I guess you would rather support Iran. I like this piece of info from your source:

Though still classified, the directive is believed to state that the US would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from loosing the war with Iran.

I think CLASSIFIED and BELIEVED would be key words. Also, I'm not too interested in what one former pentagon official thinks, if that quote was even accurate. One person's comment is not enough to make a generalization of the overall feeling of the pentagon, or past administrations or anything like that. And hey, ya, maybe we looked away in the past. That's bad! So what's your point? You seem upset that we are doing it now then? If anything we are finally correcting a wrong. So I don't know how you were trying to disprove my previous post. That doesn't change anything about our reasons to go.

[Edited on 15-12-2003 by SimpleTruth]

[Edited on 15-12-2003 by SimpleTruth]

I'm very happy to see that they have him !

My thoughts are ...


1. as someone else pointed out, even in capture, saddam says there are no weapons of mass destruction.

I find that very interesting and may just start believing that there are none..

2. When the war started and Saddam fled, how much money did he get away with ?

He was found with $750k - I know he probably spent a lot of money to stay alive all of this time.

I wondering if a lot of money has been paid to his loyalists to keep the attacks on US Troops coming ?

Just a thought or two of mine.

Again, I'm glad they got him !

Originally posted by GeniusSage
fulcrums fcking pro-saddam. bastard.

He seems not pro-saddam, more anti bush.
And any opportunity is good to bash the american sheriff

While it's all well and good that Saddam Hussein is now in custody, and I'm glad he's off the streets, I'm not fooled.

The main justification for this war was CLEAR AND IMMINENT DANGER posed by his WMDs. Well, NONE of them have been found, NO storage or technological facilities have been found to keep them active, and it's now been 9 months.

And yes, THAT was the main reason for war. Look it up, THE MAIN REASON. "Liberation" and "regime change" got tacked on after the world balked at the WMD reason, because most of them believed that Saddam had been effectively disarmed.

And the war backed up that assertion. No WMDs were used against US troops and they took over the whole damn country in like 3 days. Does that sound like ANY KIND of clear and imminent danger? They couldn't protect their own country whatsoever, but we're supposed to believe somehow they were a threat to the REST OF THE WORLD AS A WHOLE?

Was getting rid of Saddam Hussein worth hundreds of US soldiers' deaths and thousands of Iraqi civilians? I was led to believe that Iraq was an imminent threat because of its weapons of mass destruction. Anything else is purely revisionist.

Don't buy into the hype. You were still lied to, and if the evil Arab killbot Saddam gets to take the stand in an international court, he'll make a fool out of this lying administration with this thing called the "facts", not "faith-based intelligence".


oi

j

Saddam Tried to Negotiate with U.S. Captors
(Reuters) - "I'm Saddam Hussein," the man with the scruffy beard said in English when U.S. troops found him in a dirt hole. "I'm the president of Iraq and I'm willing to negotiate." "President Bush sends his regards," they replied. U.S. officers who captured the 66-year-old former dictator in the hole next to a hut in Iraq Saturday could not believe how easy it was when after eight months of hunting they took Saddam without either side firing a shot. More ...

news.yahoo.com...


I give him credit for trying though...

Originally posted by Jakomo


And yes, THAT was the main reason for war. Look it up, THE MAIN REASON. "Liberation" and "regime change" got tacked on after the world balked at the WMD reason, because most of them believed that Saddam had been effectively disarmed.

Jakomo, please read my previous 2 posts, and you will be enlightened on why we are legitimately in Iraq. Secondly THOUSANDS OF IRAQI CIVILIANS DID NOT DIE BY OUR HANDS!! THAT'S ABSURD! We did lose almost 200 soldiers so far, but the Iraqi's who died were the ones who fought for saddam. THEY were who we killed. Deaths of innocents I'm sure occurred unfortunately, because that's what war brings and it's awful. But NO WAY we killed THOUSANDS! That's the most laughable claim I've ever heard!

SimpleTruth: Yes, the US DID kill thousands of Iraqi civilians.

www.iraqbodycount.net

They cull stats from media reports and then tabulate them, because the Pentagon refuses to. They estimate between 7900 and 9700 dead Iraqi civilians. Their reporting is accurate. 20,000 injured civilians as well (through shrapnel, killed at checkpoints, etc).

As for your last two posts, I read them , they're not accurate.

"1. Saddam has unaccounted for WMD's that he could use or sell to terrorist organizations.
2. There is evidence suggesting Saddam is aiding al qaeda or other organizations, thus making him a target in the war on terror.
3. He tortures and murders his people, making this a legitimate human rights issue."

1). "Possibly" had WMD, the he "could" sell to terrorist organizations. Not exactly ironclad, and the CIA could not verify that there were ANY WMD. The most powerful intelligence agency on the planet and they couldn't find squat. The only people who were SURE Saddam had WMD was the Bush cabal, trying to convince the US population that this HAD to be done NOW.

2) BS. No evidence exists linking Al Qaeda to Saddam, at least pre-invasion. I'm sure Al Qaeda is rampant in Iraq now, but not before. NO IRONCLAD EVIDENCE from, again, the most powerful intelligence agencies in the world.

3) Pol Pot in Cambodia tortured and killed millions, and the US installed him in the first place. Never did anything about the human rights violations. Uganda, Rwanda, Liberia, etc.... All of these had massacres and NONE of them were invaded because of "human rights violations". So unless this is the FIRST instance of the US deciding to invade countries with bad leaders, this is an invalid argument.

What about China? The Bush Administration just came out last week and said they would not support any Taiwanese independence movements. China is a communist regime, and they don't want Taiwan to be able to 100% secede, and yet the US SUPPORTS this communist regime over the Taiwanese.


I would buy all your reasons for how this illegal war is valid, but I was born before yesterday.

jakomo

this saddam they apper to have captured doesnt look in my opinion anything like him and why should we have to put up with him in jail when it will be coming out of your taxes toafford to keep him in jail they should have just left him to starv to death.

Yes, Saddam Heussein, ha! It is not him, That is what I think, Yes!

Jakomo, you are ridiculous. I checked the site, the exact members and their credentials, their sources they use and the requirements for the sources. First of all, the team is made of complete liberals who have just as big of an agenda to disprove Bush as you claim Bush has an agenda for what he does. They are limp-wristed neo hippies. How come all these sources claim all these deaths, but only on the internet, and NOT on television. Like ABC, NBC, Fox and so on. Come on, if the numbers were true, it would be a bigger deal. More widespread than that sorry site. It is so biased. Oh, and their sources. This is what they say about them.


"We acknowledge that many parties to this conflict will have an interest in manipulating casualty figures for political ends."
and.......
"Some sites remove items after a given time period, change their urls, or place them in archives with inadequate search engines. For this reason it is project policy that urls of sources are NOT published on the iraqbodycount site."

This is rich. I love it. Just pathetic. Wow, sounds like you follow some very accurate numbers. Are you so daft to think that when we captured Baghdad, all those people were celebrating and thanking our troops if THOUSANDS were killed in battle? Please. Oh, and here is what they say is happening to the Iraqi citizens:


"People may suffer deep psychological trauma, miscarriage, bereavement, dislocation, and loss of home and property. Destruction of civil infrastructure can have effects which last for generations. These factors undoubtedly cause many further deaths. However, documenting and assigning responsibility for such effects requires long-term �on the ground� resources. Immediate deaths and injuries through military strikes can be pinpointed in place and time, and responsibility straightforwardly attributed to the weapon that caused the death or injury."

Wow, they are so on. I witnessed the utter psychological trauma as people were shown celebrating in the streets after Saddam was captured. Ya, they are in a horrible position, with all the relief, and smiling and all. It's tragic! I don't buy that site at all.

And back to WMD's. Go ahead. Deny that he EVER had them! I want to see you straight out DENY that saddam ever had chemical weapons and NEVER used them. Blow my mind on how ignorant you are of recent history. Haha, and you say....oh there may be terrorist in Iraq now, but not BEFORE we invaded. Nice logic! According to people who share your view points, saddam and al qaeda hated each other. So why would terrorists give a rats ass if we whooped saddam? Huh? Come on. Think about it. They are present there, and they have camps there as found by special ops. But, I give you the floor, and waiting for your denial.

Saddam has also told his captors he did not have weapons of mass destruction before the war. So far, the coalition has not found any signs of such weapons since the toppling of Saddam's regime in April.

TIME magazine correspondent Brian Bennett in Baghdad told CNN's Aaron Brown the former Iraqi leader asserted that the United States invented the presence of WMD to justify an invasion of his country.