View Full Version : SADDAM CAPTURED!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bella21
12-14-2003, 12:22 PM
Yes, if Bush was just trying to get credit for capturing Sadaam he should have pulled him out of the hole a long time ago. However, the way the Bush admin is painting it as of now, they are working it big time to their advantage seeing as how only just in the last few days have the TV campaigns started heavily against Bush and the Iraq war. But there is a lot yet to be seen as to how this prosecution and trial progresses.
As far as I understand, Bush was just in time...even a few weeks LATE and NOT early, for uncovering Sadaam, because of the televised opposition. Obviously capturing him was a huge boon to his reelection. That's all I was saying.
the Bush campaign is going to get all the mileage they can out of this capture.... hell I would too LMAO
Well, hopefully, people will be smarter than that. It's great that Saddam was captured and it's true if Bush hadn't disregarded everyone else's opinion and gone in there, we wouldn't have him. STILL... big frickin deal. We still have our troops in some 3rd world country which is too backwards to want help. They want to live in their violence (that was probably politically incorrect but I'm talking from a woman's point of view thinking about how they treat their women over there).
As for bush, I'm a republican all the way and I'd rather have him then a democrat president. but... he gives republicans a bad name!! Pressing his views on abortions and the sex industry.
SaraNLA
12-14-2003, 01:53 PM
I think the news that Saddam was caught is way more important than any other political implications. Those mass graves turn my stomach.
Hershey
12-14-2003, 02:12 PM
Im glad they caught him red handed so we can hang him dry and throw generade at him. That'll be the day for U.S. lol!
:finger:
He can kiss the U.S.'s ass and hope he will reveal where Bid Laden rotten ass is hiding. Who knows Saddam could be a traiter by telling them what we all need to know since he's coopertavinig.
Hershey
Pryce
12-14-2003, 03:33 PM
Has Saddam done horrible things? Yes.
Is it good that he is captured? Of course.
Should he go before an international court? Yes - as should ALL war criminals (not just non-american war criminals) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/article/0,2763,975476,00.html). Why an international court? Our system won't work, we were just at war with the man & our motives are suspect. We cannot provide a fair trial. Why not an Iraqi court? There is no stable or representative system in place there yet. We should not let a few we've selected decide his fate...wouldn't be very democratic of us (remember, we're supposed to be building a Democracy for Iraq).
Will this stop the attacks? In my opinion, no. According to Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno who led the raid to capture Saddam, there were no communications equipment with Saddam - making it unlikely that he was commanding. We'll finally know if the resistance is due to Saddam loyalists and military waging war or the Irai people fighting against their occupiers. And if it's the people fighting against occupiers...we're wrong. Imagine if North Korea decided to move in, killed thousands of our civilians, ran raids in our homes, and forced us through check-points. I'd be fighting against my occupiers too.
I would like to remind everyone that while Saddam has done horrible things we share responsibillity for some of those horrible acts. Our government has supported & armed him and other dictatorial regimes (still to this day). When it profited us to give Saddam weapons and billions of $'s, that's what we did. When it profited us to take over his government, that's what we did. It seems our system seeks to serve those who run it. While I understand greed, I'd rather live under a system that served the planet and its occupants. I hope there is a god to ensure that ALL enemies of freedom meet justice (not being a religious person, that's saying a lot).
If what I'm saying sounds foreign to you, please read the following excerpt:
Bechtel has long been intertwined with foreign policymakers, globally and in Iraq. It turns out that many of today's war hawks spent a couple years in the 1980s trying to get Saddam to sign an oil pipeline contract. Even though Saddam was gassing Iranians at the same time, people like Donald Rumsfeld had some quality face-time with the "evil dictator" pitching a plan that would benefit, beyond all other interests, Bechtel -- and, potentially, Hussein.
Rumsfeld flew to Baghdad, twice, as Reagan's special envoy. According to newly-available documents, a lot of his business was nothing more than advancing Bechtel's business. Following a script crafted by then-Secretary of State George Shultz -- who went directly from the CEO seat at Bechtel into the Reagan team -- he pitched the idea of building an oil pipeline from Iraq to Jordan in December 1983.
Saddam told Rumsfeld it sounded like a fine plan, but he was worried about the possibility of Israeli attack. Rumsfeld wrote back to Shultz, "I said I could understand that there would need to be some sort of arrangements that would give those involved confidence that it would not be easily vulnerable. (This may be an issue to raise with Israel at the appropriate time.)"
For the next two years, Reagan administration officials, Bechtel, and pipeline promoters expended a lot of energy trying to placate Saddam's concerns, even while publicly the U.S. government "condemned" the use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq War. Behind the scenes, State Department officials forged ahead. Rumsfeld's second meeting in Baghdad, again to press the pipeline scheme, occurred the same day that a United Nations team confirmed that Saddam gassed Iranian troops.
But it was all for naught. Two years after Rumsfeld broached the plan with Saddam, the dictator finally rejected Bechtel's proposal. He found better pipeline deals involving Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and thought the U.S. company doubled the actual construction cost.
While this signaled the end of U.S.-Iraqi oil diplomacy, the Reagan and first Bush administrations settled into a constructive engagement routine with Saddam. Bechtel signed contracts with Saddam in 1988, after "Chemical Ali" gassed thousands of Kurds, to build a huge dual-use chemical plant on the outskirts of Baghdad. Saddam named Bechtel as one of the corporate suppliers of technology for chemical weapons in its U.N. declaration last year. Construction stopped only after Saddam's troops invaded Kuwait, and his police held Bechtel employees in confinement. The last Bechtel employee left Iraq in December 1990.
U.S.-Iraqi relations -- business and political -- have never been the same. Rumsfeld and other officials have seethed as they've watched lucrative oil contracts signed between Baghdad and corporations from France, Russia and China. And to cover their own jealousy, they've decried those who would make a deal with a man possessing weapons of mass destruction.
The lesson to be drawn from Bechtel, the Aqaba pipeline and the present conflict is that an "evil dictator" is a friend of the United States when he is ready to do business, and a mortal enemy when he is not. Sadly, it is our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, who must pay the price when a deal goes bad.
seraya
12-14-2003, 04:18 PM
I agree whole heartedly with pryce i am happy that he has been captured for he is a wicked wicked man but as far as i'm concerned bush, blair and all the rest come from the same place...
I read a lot of books and search websites by conspiracy theorists ( check out the book and the truth shall set you free by david icke or his website www.davidicke.com) and yes the same goverment/s who oppose him are also the same goverments who have supported him, provided him with weapons and $.... and now they want him gone and it all comes down to $$$ and power.
Seraya.
LEIGH_LANDON
12-14-2003, 04:21 PM
Pamela - dont offer up your pups butts for Saddam to kiss - Saddam will probably french neck 'em! UGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
scorpio
12-14-2003, 07:30 PM
I think that they need to hook a car battery up to his nuts and have a little chat with him about who is killing American soldiers.
...spoken like a true Scorpio
cinammonkisses
12-14-2003, 07:35 PM
But...what a coincedence that just as the 2004 election campaign comes into focus and the television smear campaigns against Bush (in regard to the war on Iraq) get into full swing, that they should capture Sadaam? JUST in time to captivate American minds and convince them that this war was justified?
Just a point of discussion...
Hmm it's so good that I'm not the only person who looks at it this way. In my opinion...this is "right on time" for the Bush Admin. :sarcastic:
alexislv
12-14-2003, 07:45 PM
Oh my gosh cinamon/francesca..I have been saying that for months...they "find" Saddam right when Bush needs it the most...I bet right before the election they will "find" Osama bin Laden!
Pamela
12-14-2003, 07:54 PM
So true Leigh, would i want this for my babies!
However i think he should be tried by his government. This lets the people who he has tortured and killed for many many years have closure. And they deserve to hand him any punishment they want.
I don't think he belongs over in the US, these people have paid with many lives and many years of HELL. Let them have their justice! ;D
Pamela
VenusGoddess
12-14-2003, 08:22 PM
I'm happy and nervous at the same time...
Why? Because we got him and we got him. History has shown that when you catch a terrorist, then their buddies come after them, leaving nightmares and destruction in their wakes. They shouldn't have advertised that they found him, they should have just shot the dude in quiet...
But, no...Bush and Blair want the publicity. Of course, I've noticed that they have changed their reasoning...they were after him in the beginning because of the WMD...now it's because he needs to be brought to justice for his "crimes against humanity".
Still, they should have just disposed of him quietly...
Eibon
12-14-2003, 08:52 PM
I disagree, IMHO Sadam has been coordinating the attacks on our troops. Now that he's captured, the head of the serpent has been cut off!
LMAO.
At least this is a great excuse for the humanoids to wave their flags and cheer.
Let's talk about facts rather than opinions...
1. Saddam Hussein had NO ties to bin Laden that we could find. In fact, bin Laden and his allies have always been militantly AGAINST Hussein because they consider him too secular and have called for his death.
2. Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with 9-11.
3. We have found NO weapons of mass destruction, which was supposed to be reason one for starting this whole mess.
4. The individuals and groups staging attacks against American forces for the most part do NOT support Hussein.
5. Going back a bit, the vast majority of people that Saddam had killed inside Iraq were agitating against his government during the Iraq vs. Iran war. They were trying to make Iraq lose, so I guess they should have put them up in the Hilton??
6. Madelaine Albright and Co.'s sanctions against Iraq have caused more Iraqi deaths than Saddam Hussein's government ever did. Then simpleminded people ask "why do they hate us"?
I fail to see how Hussein was coordinating any attacks.
Our karma is SERIOUSLY out of balance now. We attacked another country for NO reason. :(
Why aren't we attacking N. Korea, Israel, India, or Pakistan, countries that DO have weapons of mass destruction?
Don't believe the media lies.
E
carmenNYC
12-14-2003, 09:56 PM
well i assume they are going to attempt to make SAddam talk-- tell us everything- like the deals he made with other countries etc etc. i doubt he will talk- he's fucked- he has killed over 400,000 innocent people including young children. this dude is evil- he won't last long in jail. he's going to be tortured- put to death for SURE.
Prester_John
12-14-2003, 10:25 PM
I disagree, IMHO Sadam has been coordinating the attacks on our troops. Now that he's captured, the head of the serpent has been cut off!
LMAO.
At least this is a great excuse for the humanoids to wave their flags and cheer.
Let's talk about facts rather than opinions...
1. Saddam Hussein had NO ties to bin Laden that we could find. In fact, bin Laden and his allies have always been militantly AGAINST Hussein because they consider him too secular and have called for his death.
2. Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with 9-11.
3. We have found NO weapons of mass destruction, which was supposed to be reason one for starting this whole mess.
4. The individuals and groups staging attacks against American forces for the most part do NOT support Hussein.
5. Going back a bit, the vast majority of people that Saddam had killed inside Iraq were agitating against his government during the Iraq vs. Iran war. They were trying to make Iraq lose, so I guess they should have put them up in the Hilton??
6. Madelaine Albright and Co.'s sanctions against Iraq have caused more Iraqi deaths than Saddam Hussein's government ever did. Then simpleminded people ask "why do they hate us"?
I fail to see how Hussein was coordinating any attacks.
Our karma is SERIOUSLY out of balance now. We attacked another country for NO reason. :(
Why aren't we attacking N. Korea, Israel, India, or Pakistan, countries that DO have weapons of mass destruction?
Don't believe the media lies.
E
1). No ties to Bin laden has been found, but Bin laden is far from the only Islamic extremist that is opposed to the United States. Iraq was at least a safe haven for those, merely by the fact that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Ideological differences aside, I find it unfathomable that Iraq would NOT abet and harbor those who would be working to hurt its biggest enemy - the US.
2). The Invasion of Iraq had only to do with 9-11 in the very broadest sense. After the Taliban had been broken and the Al Queda network there weakened and scattered, any US intervention in the Middle East ceased to be directly a result of 9-11, and had everything to do with flexing military muscle in a "pre-emptive" capacity, which the US has adopted as the acceptable and most effective doctrine to combat a suicide movement that doesn’t place a value on its own people's continuing lives. The Cold War was an effective standoff because neither side was willing to die for what they believed - they wanted the other side to be destroyed while preserving their own life. That lack of self preservation by its nature makes fighting Islamic extremists an unconventional undertaking.
3). WMD - a thorny issue, to say the least, and the seemingly legitimate justification for the Invasion. However, it was the threat of the existence of such weapons that gave political weight to the war, and that was fed by Saddam Hussein's obstruction and obfuscation about their existence. Personally, I follow Max Boot's summation that Bush and Co. really did believe that they were there, but the US and its Allies Intelligence organizations absolutely failed to give adequate information, or were just plain wrong in their extrapolations of the possibility of WMD existence. Given the immense damage they could do to the US, just the threat was enough, but that threat was based on faulty intelligence. Bush and Co. have been back pedaling ever since. I would have more respect for them if they admitted their Intelligence was miserable and wrong.
4). I have not heard anything that they do not support Saddam Hussein. For that, I would like some proof. So many Iraqi soldiers and militiamen - people who had the most to benefit from Saddam Hussein's continued rule, disappeared into the vast mass of the Iraqi civilian population. They would have the expertise and training in warfare, sophistication of which has been increasingly shown. I would suspect that many of them are hardliner Saddam supporters, with many others merely foreign anti-American Islamic fighters.
5). Saddam Hussein killed people right up to the Iraq War itself. Where did you ever read that they were mostly during the Iraq-Iran War? Even if they were only during that time period, your statement indicates that it was only right and proper to kill them, rather than intern them.
6). Sanctions against Iraq did indeed cause many to die in Iraq. However, how can you look at the disgustingly extravagant excesses of Saddam Hussein and his cronies, and say that the sanctions caused more deaths in of themselves? Saddam Hussein had millions of dollars he kept for himself, and had he complied with UN rulings, many of those sanctions would have been lifted (and lets not forget some of those sanctions were in response to his massacring the Kurds). How many of those Iraqi’s who died as a result of sanctions would be alive had Saddam Hussein applied all that wealth to social programs and infrastructure in his own nation?
Israel, India and Pakistan are not rogue nations, in the US's eyes, thus there is no reason to attack them, and using them is a poor example.
North Korea definitely is a rogue nation, but I would guess that’s where United States realpolitik comes into play. It’s not in the nation's best interests to use force on North Korea, so it is attempted in other means. Not ever situation with the World theatre can be treated the same way.
Eibon
12-15-2003, 12:15 AM
1). No ties to Bin laden has been found, but Bin laden is far from the only Islamic extremist that is opposed to the United States. Iraq was at least a safe haven for those, merely by the fact that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Ideological differences aside, I find it unfathomable that Iraq would NOT abet and harbor those who would be working to hurt its biggest enemy - the US.
In other words, if you don't tow the line, we will invade your country, kill your sons, and eventually capture you. I want PROOF that Iraq harbored terrorists that attacked/planned to attack the United States.
2). The Invasion of Iraq had only to do with 9-11 in the very broadest sense. After the Taliban had been broken and the Al Queda network there weakened and scattered, any US intervention in the Middle East ceased to be directly a result of 9-11, and had everything to do with flexing military muscle in a "pre-emptive" capacity, which the US has adopted as the acceptable and most effective doctrine to combat a suicide movement that doesn’t place a value on its own people's continuing lives. The Cold War was an effective standoff because neither side was willing to die for what they believed - they wanted the other side to be destroyed while preserving their own life. That lack of self preservation by its nature makes fighting Islamic extremists an unconventional undertaking.
We were told over and over how "Saddam ALLEGEDLY has ties to al Queda", etc. etc. etc. That was a MAJOR reason for getting into this mess, not some trivial side issue.
Of course the only documents that offered proof to this effect were proven forgeries - Junior enjoyed waving his forged documents around on television before the nation. How nice.
3). WMD - a thorny issue, to say the least, and the seemingly legitimate justification for the Invasion. However, it was the threat of the existence of such weapons that gave political weight to the war, and that was fed by Saddam Hussein's obstruction and obfuscation about their existence. Personally, I follow Max Boot's summation that Bush and Co. really did believe that they were there, but the US and its Allies Intelligence organizations absolutely failed to give adequate information, or were just plain wrong in their extrapolations of the possibility of WMD existence. Given the immense damage they could do to the US, just the threat was enough, but that threat was based on faulty intelligence. Bush and Co. have been back pedaling ever since. I would have more respect for them if they admitted their Intelligence was miserable and wrong.
They won't do that because they don't have to - ever since 9-11 the media and government have been working together more closely than ever.
Freedom is this country is dead.
4). I have not heard anything that they do not support Saddam Hussein. For that, I would like some proof. So many Iraqi soldiers and militiamen - people who had the most to benefit from Saddam Hussein's continued rule, disappeared into the vast mass of the Iraqi civilian population. They would have the expertise and training in warfare, sophistication of which has been increasingly shown. I would suspect that many of them are hardliner Saddam supporters, with many others merely foreign anti-American Islamic fighters.
Straight from an insurgent himself:
http://www.cp.org/english/online/full/iraq/031119/7111916AU.html
More examples could be found, just search for yourself.
5). Saddam Hussein killed people right up to the Iraq War itself. Where did you ever read that they were mostly during the Iraq-Iran War? Even if they were only during that time period, your statement indicates that it was only right and proper to kill them, rather than intern them.
The mass killings DID occur during the Iraq-Iran war. When you are in war you kill your enemies, last I checked at least. Have you ever had any military experience at all?
6). Sanctions against Iraq did indeed cause many to die in Iraq. However, how can you look at the disgustingly extravagant excesses of Saddam Hussein and his cronies, and say that the sanctions caused more deaths in of themselves? Saddam Hussein had millions of dollars he kept for himself, and had he complied with UN rulings, many of those sanctions would have been lifted (and lets not forget some of those sanctions were in response to his massacring the Kurds). How many of those Iraqi’s who died as a result of sanctions would be alive had Saddam Hussein applied all that wealth to social programs and infrastructure in his own nation?
Saddam DID trade oil for medicine and so forth. I never said he was a good guy - I said that we should not have attacked Iraq and that it is a sovereign nation. If we invade them without cause, then anyone can do anything to us that they please - call it karma, or God's law, or whatever.
Israel, India and Pakistan are not rogue nations, in the US's eyes, thus there is no reason to attack them, and using them is a poor example.
Israel isn't a rogue nation by whose standards? Their Prime Minister is a war criminal. Check it out here:
http://www.badil.org/Resources/War_Crimes/War_Crimes.htm
North Korea definitely is a rogue nation, but I would guess that’s where United States realpolitik comes into play. It’s not in the nation's best interests to use force on North Korea, so it is attempted in other means. Not ever situation with the World theatre can be treated the same way.
Exactly. It's the new American way. We can't catch bin Laden, so let's pick on Saddam. We can't take on North Korea because we are nowhere near as tough as we portray, but we'll get off on whoever we can.
Ridiculous.
E
mermaid
12-15-2003, 02:49 AM
It's great news, but like was touched on earlier, pretty convenient it happened right into an election year. Just what is the 4-1-1 :reporter:?
Prester_John
12-15-2003, 06:52 AM
My apologies Eibon. You have extremely strong opinions that are very subjective, which unfortunately short circuits any real discussion. It’s very hard to discuss things with someone who says "Freedom in this Country Is Dead". You have so made up your mind that anything said to you will bounce off your iron clad opinion. This is not a criticism of you, just a statement. You have every right to hold those opinions, it just doesn't lend itself to any sort of debate.
Peace.
francesca
12-15-2003, 08:32 AM
I would like to remind everyone that while Saddam has done horrible things we share responsibillity for some of those horrible acts. Our government has supported & armed him and other dictatorial regimes (still to this day). When it profited us to give Saddam weapons and billions of $'s, that's what we did. When it profited us to take over his government, that's what we did.
The lesson to be drawn from Bechtel, the Aqaba pipeline and the present conflict is that an "evil dictator" is a friend of the United States when he is ready to do business, and a mortal enemy when he is not. Sadly, it is our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, who must pay the price when a deal goes bad.
This is a peek into the larger issue at stake and why the U.S. went into Iraq to begin with. There are other countries around the world doing even worse things to their citizens and we don't touch them (unless they have something we want).
I know this is an oversimplification but isn't it reallly BLOOD FOR OIL?
Bella21
12-15-2003, 02:02 PM
Fran, I think that's mainly it. Driving airplanes into the twin towers just broke the last reserve and gave us an excuse to finally go in there and do something. Little was it expected that they wouldn't WANT help. Sure, a few do... but not everyone. If we ARE able to "fix" that country, it's going to take a long time, a very very long time. I figure, we either blow up the ones who don't want our help and then take over the country... or just leave them alone already!! Sheesh. I know this is too simple and would never work but I am so tired of Americans thinking that we're so special that OUR way of living is right and if anyone dare fuck with US we can get back at them however we want (ie: bush invading iraq although none of the other countries really supported him.)
vanilla_dog
12-15-2003, 02:35 PM
I would like to remind everyone that while Saddam has done horrible things we share responsibillity for some of those horrible acts. Our government has supported & armed him and other dictatorial regimes (still to this day). When it profited us to give Saddam weapons and billions of $'s, that's what we did. When it profited us to take over his government, that's what we did. It seems our system seeks to serve those who run it.
Is duly reminded... and would like to add that every last word also goes for Osama who enjoyed CIA training and weapons courtesy the USA. It seems that wise brutal dictators will learn to stay out of bed with the US if they know what is good for them.
VenusGoddess
12-16-2003, 12:47 PM
I disagree, IMHO Sadam has been coordinating the attacks on our troops. Now that he's captured, the head of the serpent has been cut off!
LMAO.
At least this is a great excuse for the humanoids to wave their flags and cheer.
Let's talk about facts rather than opinions...
1. Saddam Hussein had NO ties to bin Laden that we could find. In fact, bin Laden and his allies have always been militantly AGAINST Hussein because they consider him too secular and have called for his death.
2. Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with 9-11.
3. We have found NO weapons of mass destruction, which was supposed to be reason one for starting this whole mess.
4. The individuals and groups staging attacks against American forces for the most part do NOT support Hussein.
5. Going back a bit, the vast majority of people that Saddam had killed inside Iraq were agitating against his government during the Iraq vs. Iran war. They were trying to make Iraq lose, so I guess they should have put them up in the Hilton??
6. Madelaine Albright and Co.'s sanctions against Iraq have caused more Iraqi deaths than Saddam Hussein's government ever did. Then simpleminded people ask "why do they hate us"?
I fail to see how Hussein was coordinating any attacks.
Our karma is SERIOUSLY out of balance now. We attacked another country for NO reason. :(
Why aren't we attacking N. Korea, Israel, India, or Pakistan, countries that DO have weapons of mass destruction?
Don't believe the media lies.
E
I thought it was funny when a reporter asked Bush why the "change" in "crimes" for Saddam. Meaning they started the war against Saddam because of the WMD and now they are saying that they were really going after him for "crimes against humanity". LOL...Bush starts stuttering and goes, "Well, since 911.."
If they started a war against Iraq to oust someone that they had a problem with, with no hard evidence that there were WMD...wouldn't that make them as guilty for "crimes against humanity" as Saddam? I mean, he's responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis because he didn't like some guy and his administration? Hmmmmmm....
SexyBooty
12-16-2003, 01:06 PM
i think iragi people should punish him or whatever themselves.its not really us problem,but we dont know..
michele
12-16-2003, 03:52 PM
Yeah,not only did bush cause lots of soldiers to dye,for an unclear reason,he is costing us taxpayers billions to rebuid their country.Well we will come destroy your country ,then rebuild it and set up our own government .Wonder how much the trial is going to cost us,you know none of the other countries are going to foot the tab and if they do it wont be anything near what we will pay.
nikki
12-16-2003, 04:05 PM
Its about time they captured him!!! All my friends can come home now!!!!
montythegeek
12-16-2003, 05:58 PM
Well I guess all you folks out there are perfect and have the foresight to pick all those wonderful folks out there in the world who 20 years in the future will not like us. I guess the only solution is for the US to crawl in a spider hole and hide, and ignore all the evil in the world. We can never help anyone with anything for any reason but absolutely pristine folks. We need to just become totally isolationist and let everyone else do whatever the hell they want. No matter how many die.
Reality is a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" venture. If we do stop a genocide, someone is going to be mad we didn't do it earlier and some one is going to be mad at us for interfering. The world is an imperfect place and we are all imperfect people. We make mistakes, sometimes we do the right thing. We learn from it, and try to avoid the mistakes the next time.
alexislv
12-16-2003, 06:01 PM
good for you monty!
vanilla_dog
12-16-2003, 06:10 PM
We make mistakes, sometimes we do the right thing. We learn from it, and try to avoid the mistakes the next time.
So if I fund an illegal operation to impose a brutal dictatorship in a third world nation can I claim that I just made a mistake?
I promise I learned from it and will try to avoid it next time...
rockart70
12-17-2003, 04:05 PM
Saddam's capture is not enough to justify the war and putting american soldiers at risk. What needs to be found is weapons of mass destruction. It's stupid to say that just because Saddam has been found, the war is won. There is more to it than that
alexislv
12-17-2003, 05:04 PM
The war was never for WMD...giving Bush an extreme benefit of the doubt at most he thought there might be...but i dont personally think he thought that...i think that he wanted to get a brutal dictator out and couldnt just say that...i think that because of 9/11 our govt has almost gone into panic mode and are going after anyone they possibly can..but i could be wrong...we all could be...we only know what the media is allowed to tell us..there very well could be lots and lots of complicated reasons for going into Iraq...damn we still cant even see all the documents the govt has on the Kennedy assassination...there is no way we have enough information as to why we are in Iraq..which sucks