Jump to content

Saddam Captured


Recommended Posts

As many of us predicted the bearded despot would be found by US special forces. It was only a matter of time. I would have prefered that the US forces have shot Hussein a few thousand times, but in any event, his death cannot be long in coming. Hussein was found hiding in a hole - how fitting for such a lowlife.

The operation began after the military received tips from local residents as well as unspecified intelligence, Sanchez said. About 90 minutes after receiving the intelligence, the military launched the raid.

Troops with Task Force 2, the special forces unit set up to go after Saddam, surrounded a farmhouse and looked for the ex-dictator in two specific locations -- dubbed Wolverine One and Wolverine Two -- but initially did not locate him. The search of the home continued and troops discovered something in the ground called a "spider hole." The hole was six to eight feet deep, with enough space to lie down, camouflaged with bricks and dirt and supplied with an air vent to allow long periods inside.

Saddam was in the hole. He admitted his identity when he was captured, a U.S. defense official said.

Sanchez said he had no idea how long Saddam had been at the home in Adwar and could not say if anyone had stepped forward to claim the $25 million dollar reward for his capture. 

Some points:

1. The Civil Iraqi and US Military tribunals should find Hussein guilty of crimes against humanity and have him killed forthwith.

2. Before killing him, offer an amnesty to other insurgency leaders if the attacks on Coalition forces are halted immediately.

3. Do Not let the EU ninnies or the Cdns give Hussein a hearing at the International Court of anything. Then we will have another Milosovic fiasco.

Good job Yanks. Well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cam, how right you are - and Jean Martin is of course playing the 'post modern' statesman, demanding that the US hand over Hussein for some reason to an Int'l tribunal. The CBC does not question WHY this should be done.

Prime Minister Paul Martin congratulated U.S. troops for the capture of Saddam Hussein, adding that the deposed dictator should now be tried before a court recognized by the international community.

[from cbc.ca]

Ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if anybody deserves the death penalty, its saddam.

should be given to the iraqis and let them tear him to pieces on live television.

unfortunately this changes nothing about iraq, its still war for profit, still built on a lie of WMDs, and still a danger to teh world unless it gets under control.

whats really offensive is paul martin giving congrats to bush. bush didnt do anything. its the hardworking GIs on the ground who suffer every day who made this happen. anybody thinking it was politicians is beyond stupid.

of course, saddam wasnt too bad to support against iran, or sell equipment to, or buy oil from, or give chemicals to. maybe he was just misunderstood unill the economy slowed down.

sirriff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hussein should be tried quickly, condemned and then if possible slowly executed. I would like the victims of his policies to participate in his execution - but i suppose that might appear a little barbaric.

Atavism aside, the EU has no authority to even ask that insane Hussein be transferred to the Hague. Iraq thankfully never signed the ICJ statutes and therefore the ICJ - an abominable Canadian concept - would have no legal purview. Jean Martin is nauseating in stipulating nay demanding an international tribunal. Get serious. Good way to start to repair US-Canada relations Paul Chretien. Well Done.

Witness the Milosovic fiasco in the Hague where a murderous deranged tyrant is seemingly on a never ending tax payer funded vacation in the Low country. We don't need similar nonsense with Hussein.

His capture is the beginning of the end of violence in Iraq and the remaking of an important geopolitical nation into a Western ally regardless of the Clinton News Networks handwringing to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir Riff said:

saddam wasnt too bad to support against iran, or sell equipment to, or buy oil from, or give chemicals to.

You're speaking of your high minded, peacenik countries - France, Germany, Russia, China, Canada - aren't you?

In anticipation of one of your famous amnesia spells, here are the websites and money quotes:

a)Stockholm Peace Research says Russia, France, China biggest suppliers of Saddam's weapons

According to figures compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, between 1973 and 2002 Russia supplied 57 per cent of Saddam’s arms imports, France 13 per cent and China 12 per cent. The US supplied at most just 1 per cent and Britain significantly less than that. Brazil supplied more weaponry to Saddam than the US and Britain combined.

B)"Welcome to Anglo-Saxon reality" by Mark Steyn

National Post Thursday, April 10, 2003

France, Germany, Russia, Belgium and Canada are not on the side of peace or morality or the Iraqi people. But we are on the side of TotalFinaElf. Twice in recent columns, Diane Francis has mentioned, almost en passant, a curious little fact:The Western oil company with the closest ties to the late Saddam is France's TotalFinaElf. That's not the curious fact, that's just business as usual in the Fifth Republic. This is the curious fact: As Diane wrote in February and again last week, "Total's biggest shareholder is Montreal's Paul Desmarais, whose youngest son is married to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's daughter." Let's see if I've got this straight: TotalFinaElf's largest shareholder is a subsidiary of Montreal's Power Corp, whose co-chief executive is Jean Chrétien's son-in-law, Andre Desmarais. Mr. Desmarais' brother, Paul Desmarais Jr., sits on the Total board.Instead, it turns out that, if it is all about oil, then the principal North American beneficiary of the continued enslavement of the Iraqi people is the family of the Canadian Prime Minister -- that's to say, his daughter, France Chrétien, and his grandchildren .

c)Asia Times Feb.5/03 Germany's leading role in arming Saddam with chemical weaponry.

Expurgated portions of Iraq's December 7 report to the UN Security Council show that German firms made up the bulk of suppliers for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. What's galling is that German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his minions have long known the facts, German intelligence services know them and have loads of information on what Saddam Hussein is hiding, and Schroeder nonetheless plays holier than thou to an easily manipulated, pacifist-inclined domestic audience.

In 1991, Iraq fired dozens of Scud missiles at Israel and threatened to arm the missiles with poison-gas and biological warheads. Most of the contents of those warheads were made in Germany or made with the aid of German engineers and technology.

Friedbert Pflueger, foreign policy spokesman of the main opposition Christian Democratic parties and an embittered critic of Schroeder's and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer's Iraq policy, last Thursday accused the red-green coalition government of deliberately keeping the German and world public uninformed of BND (German foreign intelligence service) evidence and assessments on the continued existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

"If we trust our [intelligence] services, and I do, then we know that there exist weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," said Pflueger, and referred to a November 13, 2002, BND briefing of members of parliament's foreign affairs committee in which relevant information was disclosed.

As a member of parliament, added Pflueger, he was bound by his secrecy oath not to pass on such information, but challenged Schroeder to make it public forthwith. This was necessary, he said, "so that Herr Schroeder cannot continue to spread the impression that the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is a figment of George W Bush's imagination".

He said further that he would dearly like to know exactly how many different types of smallpox virus were in Iraq's possession as - during a November 13 budget committee meeting - Health Minister Ulla Schmidt had motivated her request for a several million euro allocation for the purchase of smallpox vaccine with reference to such Iraqi stocks.

Well, Gerhard, why's your minister worried? Or do vaccine purchases fall into the category of economic stimulus for the pharmaceutical industry? The reason the BND is well-informed of Iraqi WMD programs - nuclear, biological and chemical - is straightforward: since the early 1980s, it has monitored German exports of dual-use nuclear technologies, precursor chemicals for poison-gas weapons, and "pharmaceutical" products and equipment for biological weapons manufacture to the Middle East. Indeed, there are strong suspicions that it was a silent partner in a Hamburg front company, Water Engineering Trading or WET, which covered for and facilitated such exports.

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said in his January 27 report that tons of Iraqi chemical and biological agents and precursors were unaccounted for. Over the years, well over half of the precursor materials and a majority of the tools and know-how for their conversion into weapons were sold to Iraq by German firms - both prior to and after the 1991 Gulf War. The BND has the details. In February 2001, the BND compiled a further report and intelligence chief August Hanning told Spiegel magazine that, "Since the end of the UN inspections [December 1998], we have determined a jump in procurement efforts by Iraq," adding that Saddam was rebuilding destroyed weapons facilities "partly based on the German industrial standard". The BND's warnings didn't stop with that report. In April 2001, Hanning told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper that Iraq was developing a new class of chemical weapons, reiterated his alert on Iraq's missile and nuclear programs, and said that several German companies had continued to deliver to Baghdad components needed for the production of poison gas. In March 2002, he told the New Yorker magazine that, "It is our estimate that Iraq will have an atomic bomb in three years."

The German opposition parties' demand that the government make public what it knows is thus no irresponsible, idle, politically inspired chatter as the ruling Social Democrats and Greens charge. The irresponsible chatter and politicking is Herr Schroeder's.

This article is very informative and full text should be read.

d)Hope these links clear your head, Sir Riff, and your stuck record mantra:

this changes nothing about iraq, its still war for profit, still built on a lie of WMDs, and still a danger to teh world unless it gets under control.

Maybe you don't think small pox is a problem, but it would seem that the German politicians do.

e) As for your intellectually dishonest comment:

whats really offensive is paul martin giving congrats to bush. bush didnt do anything.

Hello!!! Bush put his Presidency on the line by liberating Iraq and hunting down Saddam and 'da boys and putting a halt to the unholy marriage between Saddam the secular psycho dictator and OBL the wacko Muslim fundamentalist thug, unlike some Weasel political leaders who shall go nameless, but we know dem well who vanted more proof because da proof is da proof...

Bush is courageous for his political decision and he's a fine Commander & Chief, who is giving his brave GI's the best equipment money can buy, unlike other leaders who send their soldiers to face danger in the deserts of Afghanistan in "touring" jeeps, dressed in green camouflage uniforms. Aforesaid leader shall go nameless...

e) As for Iraqis being ruled by Saddam the Butcher, not once have I heard or seen any demonstrable efforts of Arab brethern in other countries or in the ranks of those who have immigrated to Canada or the USA do ONE SINGLE THING to relieve the Iraqis' suffering or speak out against Saddam Hussein .

Correct me if I'm wrong, Sir Riff, but I see no "role model" courage in ex-patriot Arabs, have you? There haven't even been organized demonstrations against Saddam either in Canada or in their home countries, have there?

So for you to denigrate George Bush for lacking courage begs the question...what has anyone else done that's more pro-Iraqi people than George Bush? Fill me in. To criticize George Bush ad naseum means you have knowledge of people who are "more courageous."

Maybe I'm not seeing "courage" as evidenced in... Chirac?... or Assad?... or Schroeder?... or Putin?...or Chretien?... or Annan?... or Arafat?... or maybe various mullahs living abroad?...or the Cdn Islamic Congress???

Oh, now I remember...with regards to the Cdn. Islamic Congress made it quite clear what their position was regarding the liberation of suffering Iraqis:

Source:The Canadian Islamic Congress Friday Bulletin, Monday, March 17, 2003 - Muharram 14, 1424, Year:6 Vol:6 Issue:32

According to Islamic teachings in the Holy Qur'an, the American-led war against Iraq is an immoral and unjust campaign, because it will do more harm than good.

And well, we know how Schroeder, Putin, Chretien, Chirc voted about the Iraq War, they saw no suffering just a duly elected, very popular leader of a sovereign nation minding his own business...and Assad needed to sell Saddam's oil on the black market 'cause there's no oil in Syria,so blinders on Assad's eyes when the topic of children's prisons came up... and then there's the brave "general" Arafat who is brave when it comes to helping Palestinian families collect money from Saddam for homicide bombings but not so brave when it comes to telling Saddam that the $25,000 per "hit" would be better spent feeding Iraqi people...and Kofi Annan...well, he's still shuffling papers trying to figure out where all the UN 'food for oil" money went...were there suffering Iraqis? could have fooled Kofi...they should have been fat for all the oil Saddam sold to the EU...and Putin, well he was busy selling night goggles and missiles to Saddam right up to the US invasion, no time to worry about Iraqis...and Chretien...suffering? eh? vell, if Totalfinaelf had been given the chance to implement its oil contracts with Saddam, there would have been food for all, so it's Bush's fault for not letting UN inspectors inspect longer...and the mullahs, well it's hard to think of suffering when your belly is full and you're living in a cozy suite in London or NY or Ottawa. I rest my case.

The USA, especially President George Bush,who was willing to risk all, to save the world from state supported terrorism in Iraq and inflicted on innocents by Al Qaeda nutbars are to be congratulated, not denigrated, by those who have no courage to do what George Bush and his allies did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morgan you are focused on the facts without realizing implications.

everyone helped saddam. that is obvious. if you think you are the only person that can copy and past the weapons figures i think you give the internet folk too little credit.

now ask yourself what this all means.

who claimed a clear and present danger by saddam?

The US

who claimed specific intelligence that WMDs existed in many forms?

the US

who launched the war without UN approval?

the US

who has failed to find WMDs they themselves claimed to have known about?

the US

who is in line to influence oil policy in iraq?

the US.

who is suddenly calling saddam evil like they just discovered it?

the US

thus its fairly obvious, regardless of your copy and paste fiesta, that nobody is concerned with which specific nations sold him weapons. every nation involved has sold weapons to someone or someone else. certainly the US has given weapons to iraq, how they match to european weapons is meaningless, as one murder is not made any less immoral by comparing it to a dozen obviously. The US has also armied iranian terrorists, and afgan terrorists, not to mention supporting many other dictators. there is no question as to who is more guilty here, the US has far more blood on its hands in the last few decades then others.

only one country cited WMDs, went around the US, is an occupying power, and has to defend its actions. the US. nobody else launched a war.

the US has an evil record when it comes to afganistan, iran, and iraq. they have to now defend thier current actions against their previous positions.

i would think this is all obvious

supporting dictators is not a relative scale. its rather pathetic to try to lesson the criminality of it by pointing out others have done it. that entire logic does not work in any situation of normal personal responsibiity.

sirriff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who claimed a clear and present danger by saddam?

The US

who claimed specific intelligence that WMDs existed in many forms?

the US

who launched the war without UN approval?

the US

who has failed to find WMDs they themselves claimed to have known about?

the US

who is in line to influence oil policy in iraq?

the US.

who is suddenly calling saddam evil like they just discovered it?

the US

VIVE LE US!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir Riff,

To accuse me of "being too focused on facts without realizing implications" is laughable.

Duh, Mr. "genios," as you are in the habit of calling me...facts are the cornerstone of opining about implications.

Unfortunately, you choose to do the latter without support from the former.

And if it's so easy, as you claim, to cut and paste supporting links from the internet, why don't you do it for a change?

I'm tired of reading your unsupported, mis-spelled, grammatically incorrect re-hashed garbage whose only purpose is to bury my hard work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just speaking the truth man...

look at what you did, you copied and pasted a bunch of pointless information of what france and germany did.

what was your point?

you were trying to use arms sales data to somehow reduce or difuse or transfer the responsiblities of teh US.

as i said, if i did 1 murder, and you did 12, does that make me any less of a murderer?

of course not, its absolute unrelated to the level of my moral responsibility.

and once again someone gets all hissy without trying to understand the perspective of another opinion.

facts are the cornerstone of opining about implications.

see..i never said facts are bad, i said without implications they are useless. as i said, all this data about europe is pointless because i was referring to the moral burden of the US. and helping dictators is not relative.

And if it's so easy, as you claim, to cut and paste supporting links from the internet, why don't you do it for a change?

because if you actually understood what i said, its not relavent to the discussion of US responsibilities. doesnt matter if france sold 2X, or 20X, or 200X as much as the US, the US chooses to support violent in iran, iraq, and afganistan.

you keep pretending that complicity in oppression is relative. it aint. this is why everything you pasted is not relavent to what i said. 1 murder is not lessened by someone elses 12. someone elses wrong does not lessen your own as you incorrectly imply.

after all your ranting you never never actually put forward a conclusion as to why you are posting these facts about france when we are talking about the US fault. you just spew them out there as if the clicking of the mouse is the achievement. see, that would be the implication, what exactly does it add to the perspective and why is it meaningfull in this discussion?

now THAT would be useful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who claimed a clear and present danger by saddam?

The US

who claimed specific intelligence that WMDs existed in many forms?

the US

who launched the war without UN approval?

the US

who has failed to find WMDs they themselves claimed to have known about?

the US

who is in line to influence oil policy in iraq?

the US.

who is suddenly calling saddam evil like they just discovered it?

the US

VIVE LE US!

VIVE LE US !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir Riff,

"Man," I get it.

You post innuendo about the USA and Bush with no supportive documentation, though I thought those were the rules on this forum. For some reason, you believe that the rules are meant to be mocked not to be followed. Then when I cut your emotionally charged criticisms to shreds with facts, your fall back rebuttal is an "empty post", dissing my lack of perspective.

To refresh your memory here's your previous post to which I responded:

if anybody deserves the death penalty, its saddam.should be given to the iraqis and let them tear him to pieces on live television. unfortunately this changes nothing about iraq, its still war for profit, still built on a lie of WMDs, and still a danger to teh world unless it gets under control.whats really offensive is paul martin giving congrats to bush. bush didnt do anything. its the hardworking GIs on the ground who suffer every day who made this happen. anybody thinking it was politicians is beyond stupidof course, saddam wasnt too bad to support against iran, or sell equipment to, or buy oil from, or give chemicals to. maybe he was just misunderstood unill the economy slowed down.sirriff

In my well documented reply, which you buried post haste, I addressed your comments about Bush not having courage, your accusation that the USA invaded Iraq strictly for a profit motive to get the oil, and that the USA liked Saddam well enough to support him against Iran, get his oil and sell him weapons.

Here's "my point" which seems to escape you...I'm not sharing blame for Saddam's tyrannical rule.I'm pointing the finger at who should be "blamed" and it's not the USA.

I've proven that the blame BELONGS to your heroes...France, Germany, Russia, China, Canada, the UN and its NGO's, and other Arabs who benefited from Saddam being in power. None of the aforementioned DID A SINGLE THING TO HELP THE IRAQIS, except for the USA and its allies.

If the USA had followed the watch words of the Canadian Islamic Congress and the UN, to name a few of those "concerned" about tossing out Saddam-ie. do nothing -Iraqi women would still be raped for sport by Uday and there'd still be children's prisons and ordinary Iraqi people would be still be wondering how come Saddam lived in palaces while they lived in hovels with no indoor plumbing.

P.S. I think Galahad is trying to tell you something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points. France and Russia supplied 75 % of the military arms to Hussein, the US about 1 %. The UNO made $21 billion in 10 years off of Iraq and stuffed the money into French bank accounts. The French and Russians made $7 billion in illegal revenues per annum during the 90s, the US --- none. France and Russia had billions in oil concession from Hussein - the US -- none. Hussein sent money to Chirac and Primakov - and to the US -- none.

See a pattern ?

No nation state, including Canada, acts without self interested motives, but the liberation of Iraq and of the Middle East is necessary and overdue. It is the only way to fight terror.

Canada incidentally via its CIDA - foreign aid program - ties all foreign aid into buying Cdn products. The result ? Ill-liberal nations, dictators and non essential sectors are supported.

Still believe that Canada is a boyscout nation do you ? Ah. Such poor naivite.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WMDs will be the next step. There is no question that pre-War intelligence from every nation and from the UNO posited that such weapons existed. Current interrogation of top officials reveals that they too believe that WMD exists.

Will Hussein cooperate on WMD details ? No reason to expect that he should. He will die anyways, why make the case against him stronger ?

ISG chief David Kay said in a report issued in October that the team turned up much intriguing evidence of Mr. Hussein's appetite for banned weapons. The report cited "multiple sources" that indicate Iraq explored resuming chemical-weapons production in recent years, "possibly as late as 2003," and that Mr. Hussein asked underlings in 2001 or 2002 how long it would take to resume production of chemical agents.

Interrogators could use such information when questioning Mr. Hussein to pry details out of him. Among other things, the ISG will explore why Iraq refused to cooperate with U.N. inspections if it had nothing to hide. One theory is that Mr. Hussein incorrectly believed he had chemical and biological weapons, misled by underlings who exaggerated Iraqi capabilities. Another is that, though no weapons existed, he maintained ambiguity about whether he had them, in order to deter an invasion.

It's always possible, too, that Mr. Hussein could provide information that leads to discoveries that Iraq was indeed actively pursuing banned weapons. In interviews with U.S. interrogators, Iraqi military commanders have said they believed strongly that their army had chemical weapons and that it would deploy them once U.S. troops reached the outskirts of Baghdad, a senior official said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This exchange is humorus, yet utterly frustrating at the same time.

Riff, your pathetic Democrat talking points just aren't going to cut it. All of your greviences have been dealt with at depth on this forum, and subsequently debunked, according to anyone not blinded by pure ideology that is.

Doesn't it throw up flag when you and your liberal freinds are consistantly proven wrong on every position you take? If liberals want to continue to exist, they'd better face facts, put politics aside, and quit acting like children.

Forget WMD, evidence of which will eventually be uncovered, by the way. This president is willing to do what's right and necessary in order to quash this dangerous culture of islamo-facist terror, a reality which you seem to deny the severity of.

Let's not forget that your hero Billy the Clinton spent 8 years lining his pockets with green, while at the same time abeting terrorists and dictators world-wide. Clinton focused on the positive alright, and he left behind a lovely collection of problems for future adminstrations to take care of.

Let's also not forget that the Clinton Adminstration, under the auspice of superior moral convictions ofcourse, relied on much of the same intellegence in 1998 to laub cruise missles at Iraq in a token attempt to show the world he was dealing with the problem.

Let's not forget that it was the Clinton Adminstration, who based on the same intellegence, declared regime change as the offical US policy towards Iraq. Unfortunately, Willy lacked the orbs to risk his precious legacy on such a large political uncertainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure that President Bush is extremely happy to fulfill what his father could not. Don't get me wrong, the tyrant must be brought down to justice. Bush however, seemed unusually happy, probably because he completed his father's mission. Now, American troops have suffered long for Bush's little vendetta and it's time they come home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Farrius,

Oh puhleeze, your feigned concern about the welfare of American GI's is too "precious."

Instead of your back-stabbing opinions about "the soldiers suffering long enough", as well as the well worn misguided observation that George Bush is "just fullfilling what his father couldn't do....why not read a soldier's unbiased take on Saddam's capture and the Iraqi war? Evidently the soldiers are very proud and they're smiling as much as George Bush.

WSJ Dec.15/03 A GI's take on Saddam's capture and why the war in Iraq is an important mission

'No Saddam' by Lance Cpl. Guardiano is a field radio operator with the U.S. Marine Corps'

"Saddam Hussein may have been captured," CNN was reporting. My thoughts quickly raced back eight months to the day I arrived in Al Hillah, Iraq. My Marine Corps reserve unit had been activated before the war, and my team had found itself in the Babylon province. We were 60 miles south of Baghdad and were to help stabilize and reconstruct this small Iraqi city. The war was just a month old when we arrived in Al Hillah, yet already the facts on the ground had changed dramatically.

The eerie silence of war had given way to large and boisterous crowds of young people--happy, smiling children who rushed out to greet us. Most of what they said was in Arabic and thus unintelligible to me. But their facial expressions and body language said enough. They were happy to see us. Some even managed to shout more than a few English phrases."Americhi, Americhi!" they shouted. "Bush good, Saddam bad!" "What's your name?" Some enterprising young Iraqis even offered to sell us soda and water. All of them, it seemed, gave us a hearty thumbs-up and vigorously waved and pumped their hands in gratitude and appreciation of our presence there.

Our comfort level with the Iraqi people grew considerably in the coming weeks and months as we assumed effective governing control of Al Hillah and the surrounding province. We came to realize that the gratitude and affection we experienced on that first day was far from fleeting and ephemeral. It was instead deeply rooted in the people's recent collective conscience.

Al Hillah is overwhelmingly Shiite, and the Babylon province is home to at least two mass graves, where thousands of innocent men, women and children were buried (sometimes alive) after Saddam and his henchmen had tortured them. Virtually everyone, it seemed, had a story to tell about a family member abducted in the dead of night by the Baathists, never to be seen or heard from again. For the Iraqis who endured the sadism and cruelty, there was a deep-seated, lingering fear that Saddam would one day rise again, that the Baathist tyranny would resume under his leadership if the United States tired of the fight and left the country.

I was therefore not surprised to see ordinary Iraqis cheering Saddam's capture and firing rifles into the air. What has been surprising is the negative media coverage and the shameless exploitation of the war for partisan political purposes that I've seen since returning from Iraq in September.

"It's almost as if what we did over there never happened and doesn't matter," one of my staff sergeants told me. But what we did, and what the U.S. military is still doing, does matter, as the Iraqis whom I was privileged to know and befriend will tell you. 

"Negative and shameless" backstabbing...those are good adjectival modifiers for your comments, Farius. Thank you, Lance Cpl. Guardiano, I was searching for exactly those words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of your back-stabbing opinions about "the soldiers suffering long enough", as well as the well worn misguided observation that George Bush is "just fullfilling what his father couldn't do....why not read a soldier's unbiased take on Saddam's capture and the Iraqi war? Evidently the soldiers are very proud and they're smiling as much as George Bush.

Evidently the families of GIs killed are not. Has your one-sided brain thought of that one? I do not know if you are a woman, or a man, young or old, but don't tell me you're going to support a war that requires a close, loved one to be killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't tell me you're going to support a war that requires a close, loved one to be killed.

Hey Farrius, have any close, loved ones killed in 9-11?

----------------------------------------

Baghdad Jim's at it again. For those who don't know, Jim McDermott is the embarrassment Democrat represenative from my home state of Washington. So I must apolgize again on behalf of this treasonous fool.

Here are his latest comments on the capture of Saddam Hussein. He'd make a good playmate for Howard Dean.

The Washington congressman who criticized President Bush while visiting Baghdad last year has questioned the timing of the capture of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. 

Rep. Jim McDermott (search), D-Wash., told a Seattle radio station Monday the U.S. military could have found Saddam "a long time ago if they wanted." Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said: "Yeah. Oh, yeah."

The Democratic congressman went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing." "It's funny," McDermott added, "when they're having all this trouble, suddenly they have to roll out something."

State Republicans immediately condemned McDermott's remarks, saying the Seattle Democrat again was engaging in "crazy talk" about the Iraq war (search).

"Once again McDermott has embarrassed this state with his irresponsible ranting," GOP state Chairman Chris Vance said in a news release. "Calling on him to apologize is useless, but I call on other Democrats to let the public know if they agree with McDermott -- and Howard Dean (search), who recently said he thought it was possible that President Bush had advance knowledge about 9/11. The voters deserve to know if the entire Democratic Party believes in these sorts of bitter, paranoid conspiracy theories (search)."

Last year, Vance and other Republicans labeled McDermott "Baghdad Jim" for comments he made during a trip to Baghdad that President Bush "would mislead the American people" but that Saddam could be trusted.

Full Text:

Dem Rep. Suspicious of Timing of Saddam Capture

McDermott has been a problem here in Washinton for years. He is a certified nutbar and has lost complete control of his faculties. If being a dipsh*t were an impeachable offense, he'd have been gone long ago.

On a side note, during my final year of college, McDermott had agreed to come speak at my school. However when he found out that his staff had committed him instead to a debate with Chris Vance (state GOP chairman), the coward refused saying that he was unable to debate an unelected offical! Disgraceful. So, in my school's infinite wisdom, they decided to uninvite Chris Vance so McDermott could come give a propoganda lecture within the safety of the left wing education establishment. Also disgraceful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who launched the war without UN approval?

the US

The US launched it under resolution 687 and 1441. 687 being the agreement for ceasefire from Gulf 1. After Blix went on record saying he was not gdtting total co-operation and still turning up WMD material it allowed the US to resume the war.

1441 states that Iraq would face serious consequences if it did not report and destroy it's WMD and the materials and equipment related to same. That also proivides a mandate for war.

who has failed to find WMDs they themselves claimed to have known about?

the US

As for knowing where they were, yes. Knowing where they were moved to in the weeks after, no. Remember Gulf 1? They knew where the Scuds were, but not all the time. They were mobile remember? Which Scuds were loaded with chemicals and which were not? Iraq possessed the ability to facilitate this so all had to be treated as a threat of this nature.

Considering that over 120 of the 130 weaspons stockpiles has not even been looked at, You shouldn't be in too much of a hurry to put your foot in your mouth. As well over three quarters of the country has not been gone over either. You point is meaningless. They could turn up any day, minute or second.

Already enough has turned up to justify the war so your comments are only 'In your face' meaningless natter.

who is in line to influence oil policy in iraq?

the US

Oil policy. Good one, I see that you guys have changed the crap cry from 'Blood for oil' to "Blood for having influence on oil policy.'

FYI, there is not enough oil in Iraq to repay even five percent of what the US will have spent liberating it.

who is suddenly calling saddam evil like they just discovered it?  the US

Saddam has always been evil. In 1990 he demonstrated that he was evil, as well as a threat to all countries in the region. That makes him 'really evil.' Some of those countries were allies of ours as well as business partners. That makes him a threat to US interests. Then of course came 9 11 and the realisation that terrorism was a problem that wouldn't be going away as long as Arab countries stayed the way they are. A credible, prosperous Arab society had to be made. Iraq fit the bill as it had a despot who wouldn't be missed (except by the left it seems), a somewhat modern, educated industrial society and a means with which to finance itself (Oil). It's central location is a geographic bonus for more 'democracy seeding either militarily by the US or through exchange of trade with a new democratic Iraq.

Providing proof that prosperity is possible and seeding it here and there it creates a breeding ground for responsible citizens with hope for a future ratrher than nutbars with nothin else to lose. Surely you can only see good in this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points guys. But Fairyus will be unmoved. He hates freedom, hates the West and wants Terrorism to win. I suggest he go join Dean and the Hate America party down south.

Hussein was found in a very small hole by chance. That small hole would hide about 1 tonne of WMD.

Imagine burying WMD. I have seen pictures of 7 tonnes of WMD being destroyed in 1997 by the UNO. The Hole would have fit in a back yard and it was deep [they were blowing up the chemicals] but to hide 100 tonnes would require 10-15 large holes.

In sparse territory this is easy to hide. Without inside help from regime members it will be a VERY LONG time before WMD is found.

But keep blabbing Libs, apparently you have been wrong on every single issue so far in this war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hussein was found in a very small hole by chance. That small hole would hide about 1 tonne of WMD.

Excellent example Craig.

But keep blabbing Libs, apparently you have been wrong on every single issue so far in this war.

As for being wrong on every issue, yes pretty much. They seem to take a certain glee in any downturn of events even though anybody can see what and where this is leading. It is all so clear now, Iraq is just a steady march to total democracy. No more giant hurdles left, just a lengthy flexing of muscles, trial and error. It's pretty much in the bag. The religious groups bekon and call for elections as they are the only group organised enough to come out on top at this moment but any fool can see thaat the country needs more time, not a lot, just more. To pin a enormous event such as this transition from dictatorship to democracy at the hands of a third party is impossible. When it's ready, it's ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidently the families of GIs killed are not. Has your one-sided brain thought of that one? I do not know if you are a woman, or a man, young or old, but don't tell me you're going to support a war that requires a close, loved one to be killed.

Wow, talk about thinking small.

I assume that every wife or mother of every soldier lost in WWII feels that the war and reason was not enough to justify the loss of their loved one.

Law and order are not reason enough to sacrifice ones's life says the wife of a police officer killed in the line of duty.

Same stuff, same argument. The rest of us realise that shit happens when you change the world for the better. You think a free Iraq is a bad thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

American troops have suffered long for Bush's little vendetta and it's time they come home.

This is pretty insulting to American servicemen. They are trained to do a job and trained to believe that they can do that job. I would bet that none of them want to come home before their task is finished, and for them to be pulled out only having half-completed their mission is practically an accusation of cowardice.

I'm sure the troops are fine. Casualties are very low, and from all I've heard they have a real sense of accomplishment. Iraqis are happy and, on the whole, want the soldiers to be there and are grateful for the fine job they've done so far.

In Gulf I, the greatest disappointment was not amongst those troops sent off to fight in the desert, it was amongst those left behind. Those who were not shipped out thought of themselves as the unlucky ones. These are not Vietnam-era conscripts, they are highly trained volunteers who believe in their mission, their commanders and their country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...