Saddam Arrested

I'm kinda more interested in making a deal with Saddam, give him life in prison instead of a quick Nuremberg like hanging. The information he possesses about potential WMD, terrorism threats, targets in Iraq etc etc is much more important than hasty retribution

 

I find it odd that you chose this particular way to describe the U.S. invasion, when in fact I think in large part it also describes the guerrilla movement. The continual checkpoints and roadblocks, raids on trade union headquarters, random shootings, etc, describe exactly the "no freedom of movement, freedom of association etc" that many Iraqis feel persists to this day. And quite a few it seems are "fighting like hell to change that" and welcoming anyone who would help them, (read: Baathists, foreign fighters, Islamists, etc). And so given your own account of this, I don't see how the guerrilla fighting is ever going to end as long as the U.S. is there and in charge, (either directly or indirectly).

 

It is a pretty clueless assesment when people go... we should have let the CIA assasinate him, and stayed out militarily. Well sorry to break it to you but the CIA is not as cool as the movies show it to be, they can't just snap their fingers and get someone killed. They tried to kill castro for a long time and got nothing. The only time they actualy have a chance is in a country that is highly unstable, countries that are stable for whatever reason (iron fist, or happy citizens) are not so easy to operate and assasinate in.

 

I think that you misinterpreted my statement. What I meant was I would not be opposed to him, and only him, being assasinated, but that any more military involvement than that is what I consider unacceptable.

 

Dude, asking a question like the one you asked constitutes smugness in anyone's book - except your own it seems. Get real, only a NUT would actually WANT to be ruled by a murderous dictator like Saddam.

So make a quick recap for me. WHICH COUNTRIES, man?

No, I would much prefer the US keep its fat greedy fingers out of everybody else's pies.

Don't put words in other people's mouths, thank you, because I never said that. No, I don't believe there is any justification for an illegal and poorly thoguht-through military campaign that is claiming triple-digit casualties on pretty much a weekly basis.

RIGHT. The US acts only in its own greedy self-interest. Gotta keep those gas-guzzling SUVs rolling somehow! Installing a puppet regime in a middle-eastern country is apparantly a good way to accomplish that in Washington's eyes.

*G*

 

I live in Oklahoma, I lived in Oklahoma at the time, I was supposed to be at a place down the street at the tiem it happened, but because of bad weather (or something like that, long time ago) my trip was cancelled. I had friends that were there. I had friends and friends relatives die there. I had friends assisting in the rescue afterwards. I never heard jack didly squat about unexploded C4. I think it's just someone wanting to come up with a conspiracy.

 

For a bit of levity:

http://www.toccionline.com/creations/realhussein/

 

Oh for f*ck's sake. I was asking about the living conditions prior to the invasion. I have no idea how conditions were in Iraq in the '90s, things like medicine, sanitation, crime, etc. You keep assuming I'm making some flippant little jab at Saddam's dictatorial cruelty and how all Iraqis should therefore be embracing the American forces now occupying their country but I wasn't; I honestly thought it would be interesting to hear about the conditions from someone actually living there. But forget I asked.

<goose steps out of the thread while caressing his Republican party member card>

 

Grenada, Panama, and Kosovo, man

Ah, from the man who said "There are WORSE people than Saddam Hussein still at large out there and the US does NOTHING." Of course if we got rid of Saddam and other WORSE people by going "on a holy crusade to dicratorship countries, invaded them and catched their leaders just to liberate them" then it's O.K. (your words, not mine).

Make up your mind.

 

ok, what would you say if China atacked Iraq before the US? How about next they start atacking south american, then african countries that are ruled by dictators. What if, in the process, the killed thousands of civilians for no reason? Assume that China then put in place it's own pseudo-democratic puppet government. What would you say then? And how is it different from what the US is doing?

 

I wouldn't say nothing if then the usa was allowed to get in on contracts to rebuild and make tons of money. Which is the only reason other countrys are pissed off.

 

somehow I doubt that the US would sit idly by. likely, if China started preemptive strikes against ANYONE all of the western world would be aiming weapons at China, screaming at the top of their lungs "DONT MOVE!"

 

I don't see why. Now if china invaided and then wanted to take over the land and make it part of china i could see a diffrence. But if they wanted to take out a madman who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and give them a better life and thier own goverment and then leave when all tha twas finally acomplished and the rebuilding was finished I see no problem .

 

Personally, I think, at this time based upon the available evidence, that Bush honestly believed Saddam possessed WMD's (an illusion that, oddly/stupidly enough, Saddam perpetuated himself due to ego but that is another subject entirely) but at the same time Bush pushed this particular point so hard because politically it was the only way to get us "greedy self-interest"ed Americans to popularly support a military action since it would be an act of defense against an apparent threat.

 

oh give it a rest with the ati-US rhetoric.
We havent installed a puppet government, we havent only acted in our own interests. I cant believe the venom in you peoples voices. Oh, the war was "illegal", eh? Says who? You peaceniks? Please, according to you, the US can do no right. No matter what - if we dont interfere, we are the devil for not helping. If we do, we are sticking our "fat greedy fingers" into everything. You dont get it both ways, so STFU.

 

according to international law.

 

Means to and end, end to a means. One is permanent, used to coerce and control a populace in order to have control. The other is temporary, an unnecessary requirement brought on by the first situation. Do not be so naive to think that in few years that the environment as it is now will remain as is. Do you have any suggestions on how to establish law and order in Iraq ?

Are you suggesting that "Baathists, foreign fighters, Islamists, etc" are fighting for freedom? As I said in my original post, individual rights and freedoms are something that I hold dear. Those that you mentioned are fighting for change (re: power), not freedom, which is a very important distinction to make.