So it seems they got Saddam.

Any thoughts on this from all you americans? Happy? Sad? Why?

Ambivalent really. I can't say I have a whole lot of sympathy for him.... after all when all's said and done he was pretty brutal.

I'm more worried about Iraq effectively being handed over to the Shi'ites... and the WMD that still haven't been found.... and the faked intelligence data about uranium.... and the blatant propaganda from Fox.... etc... etc.

On one hand, its a very good thing. Iraquis who were afraid of his return can rest easy. Our troops will probably suffer some payback from Saddam loyalists, but hopefully the intensity of such attacks will lessen over the next few months. On the other hand, Saddam was never a threat to the US, and Bin Laden is still out there. To sum up, America is no safer today than it was yesterday.

Now, a slightly off topic question. Should he be put to death? Personally, I think he should, but killing him could make him a martyr to the fanatics out there.

I'm glad they finally got him, it'll hopefully lessen the attacks on our troops over there. There is at least one person I know, that is getting ready to go over there.

I do know one thing, the majority of the Iraqis are very happy about his capture and I imagine so are a few countries in that area.

They shouldn't execute him, it would just make him a martyr to some people over there. They should just find the deepest prison cell in Iraq and throw him in there for the rest of his life.

Its a different story for Bin Laden not being cartured, there are more people on his side then there were for Saddam, so he has more people helping him to hide. Plus I doubt hes hiding in a house in a major town. He might not even be anywhere near Afganistan. I'm sure there are several countries that would be glad to hide him from us.

1 long word


WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm with Corwin... except we're not going to find any WMD because there weren't any to be found. In some ways I'm sorry they found him. It will add fuel to bush's reelection campaign and who knows what equally stupid and dangerous things he'll do in his next four years.

Keep in mind that we Americans have short memories. Bush Sr. was riding high in 1991 after the Gulf War, but got sent packing in 1992. History could repeat itself.

Everyone pretty much said how I feel about the capture of Saddam. I guess it's a good thing. He's getting a trial in Iraq. Don't know what that means for him, we'll see.

I'm more concerned with the "YEAH BUSH WAS VICTORIOUS THE WAR DID EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO" BS because it might give Bush the oomph to put him back in office.

With that said, I'm really depressed.

sounds like chip would rather have a murderous dictator loose in order to have some political leverage for the democrats in the 2004 election.

lets see...hope for the failure of thousands of dedicated and courageous young men and women (mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, daughters, and sons) so that chip and his ilk can have some hope to not be completely overwhelmed by their own underestimation of the leadership of George Bush.

Nice work Chip.


I prefer simple plans like, capture the lawless tyrant that has caused death and humiliation for millions of people.

Oh, and if it's because of the tireless, focused, and principled leadership of some men and women in elected positions, then yes, I hope they gain the respect and support that they deserve for their service.

That sounds better, I think, than "aww, I wish bush would fail so my guy could have a shot at being president, even if it means the continuing fear and upheavel of millions caused by a fugitive dictator"

champie

Spoken like a true Replican with dictatorial aspirations Champie. Why do you assume I'm a Democrat? Isn't it possible that I just happen to think Bush is the worst president in the history of our fine nation? Destabilizing the middle east for the sake of political gain is exactly what Bush has done, but you're too indoctrinated into the Republican mindset to get it. When the rest of the world has decided to cooperate with each other and we're still blindly unilateralist because of our arrogance, we'll see how brilliant Bush's strategy is. Go watch the news. The Iraqis aren't exactly celebrating in the streets.

Daemioth:


what part about capturing Sadddam would not be a good thing? Other than now you have less to be hopeful for in regard to the presidential election in 2004 (assuming from your post that you would not want Bush to be president), there is no good reason to wish that Saddam was not captured.

How many more more dangerous and deadly missions do you want soldiers to endure?

My answer is only as many as are necessary to help the Iraqi people create a lawful, peaceful, and stable governement.

champie

so chip, are you saying that Saddam should be free?

No. I'm saying that Bush shouldn't be either.

and yes chip, it is possible that you are not a democrat, but not probable. I guess I recklessly played the percentages on that one.

Chip, I cant even begin to address the ways in which you are misguided on this topic. But I'll ask one question at a time. I already posted the first one in my previous post ^.

If you can answer that we can continue with a nice question and answer session to help you sort out your problems.

Champie

and I already answered it ^

ok...you responded while I was wrinting that last post..

So, Bush should not be free? You mean he is a criminal? or do you mean he should just not be president?

I just saw the report on the television of his capture. I was deeply saddened, the televised media still is blatently aiding the Bush campaign. I made a vow to never watch televised media again before, and should have continued to follow it today. It was obviously carrying the message 'Be sympathetic for the Bush administration, look, they've done something right! Let's all vote for Bush this coming year!'

Something has to happen, before I loose belief in the political system completely.

I have always been anti-war. The way the media was presenting the event, was like a big 'support Bush's war!' ad.

Now, on to my thoughts on the administration's policys in Iraq:

The Bush administration has blocked other country's contracts for rebuilding Iraq. So, this proves he wants the money involved in rebuilding, and wants to cheat the people of Iraq, at least economicly, by killing American/British company's foreign competition.

Hrn. Bad taste in mouth, I dont think I should continue this post.. now I've violated my vow on not posting to forums dealing with politics

==Chris

I mean both.

any thoughts about why certain countries would be blocked from reconstruction contracts? I don't think that Christophers logical leap has any validity. There aree other possibilities that would be more consistent with the effort that is being made in the region.

Security. What interest do French Companies have in the region. What contributions have the French made to the establishment of a dictator free Iraq? No doubt that there is financial benefit to the reconstruction, but that is the case in almost every circumstance involving development.

Do you suggest that after months of trying to bring other nations into the effort that we should now hand these benefits to them without regard for their prior poor judgment. If I beleived that Iraq was a quagmire like some notions that people advance, then I would stay as far away as possible.

congratulations on being anti-war. You are successful at allowing criminals and tyrants who laugh at your stance continue to kill, maime, torture, abuse, and exploit millions of people.

You also dismiss the millions of lives that have been sacrificed for a greater good. Not all war is good, protection of rights and freedoms requires a fight as long as others seek to rufuse those rights and freedoms.

The constitution of the US is a balance between the rights of men and women and the laws that govern the protection of those rights. We can't just wish tha everyone respects the rights of others, sometimes we have to protect them!

you're answers are awfully short chip. Is that all you really want to say.

George Bush is a criminal, therefore you are ambivalent to the capture of Saddam.

there seems to be a problem here...you've lost emphasis on any sort of principles that might guide your thinking.

So what postive value have you placed on Saddam that causes you to have conflict about his capture?

We know why some people are happy...because he was a dictator who abused his people.

Why are some people not happy? Whatever reasons these are, you obviously feel that there is some value to these reasons. Now remember, these reasons must be independent of George Bush. To be ambivalent, there must be some conflict between opposite views...Where are you on the Pro-Saddam side that causes you this ambivalence?

Again, "Bush is a criminal" does not explain any positive value on Saddam.

I'm sure that's a big comfort to the tens of thousands of innocent men women and children that we've killed in Iraq and Afghanistan

the reason I pursue this point with chip is to point out that chip probably isnt ambivalent about Saddam, but just doesnt like George Bush. However, for emphasis of his anti-Bush rhetoric, chip uses the apprehension of a criminal to espouse specific political views.

<Criminal> = Saddam (chips own admission)
Capture <Criminal> = Good (my own assertion, argue if you disagree)

Good or Bad Saddam Capture?

Captured Saddam = (chips answer) ambivalence

when logically you should say:

Captured Saddam = good


Am I missing something?

Yes... you're missing the fact that we had absolutely no business invading Iraq in the first place.

The Bush Administration has a history of supporting the interests of Bush loyalists. On the surface, it looks like keeping France, Canada and Germany out is punishment for not supporting the war. The reality is that it allows the Administration to hand out no-bid contracts to companies like Haliburton, who have direct connections to Cheney.

I'm positive that Haliburton will get of scot-free for overcharging the Pentagon. Just look at what has been done by the Bush Administration in the Enron scandal. I see a big broom sweeping the matter under an even bigger rug.

As noted in the other thread on this matter..

We have lots of cash to pay contracts to rebuild Iraq but what about supplies for our service people? Many do not have bullet proof vests and adequate weapons or ammo. Some dont have enough supplies like FOOD.

This administrations priorities are whack all around IMHO.