Adventure Game Studio

Maybe they have and maybe they haven't.  Its irrelevant either way.

I bet they will project this as a victory...shifting the focus from the WMDs....bring on the spin doctors.  ::)

It is confirmed that Saddam Hussein, the REAL Saddam Hussein is indeed captured. They did teeth tests & DNA testes which prove that Saddam Hussein was captured.

Great news for all the countries that were threated by his madness and his intentions to use chemical and biological weapons against countries and to taske over countries. And also great news for the Iraqi people who can now make a democratic Iraqi government for the good of the Iraqi people.

Quote from: Nostradamus on Sun 14/12/2003 16:53:00
Great news for all the countries that were threated by his madness and his intentions to use chemical and biological weapons against countries and to taske over countries. And also great news for the Iraqi people who can now make a democratic Iraqi government for the good of the Iraqi people.

He wasn't the only obstacle to that, you know. His supporters may well drop off now, but they aren't the only troublemakers in Iraq, nor even the majority among them. It won't be magically all good now that the big evil overlord has been captured.

(as for the rest of your post: pre-war Iraq wasn't really a threat to any other country, but that's been debated 8457 times before and after the war, so let's keep out of this issue.)

here I go...Im going to say something pretty un-liberal here..

good job. Im glad they did it.

Getting Saddam taken care of was one of the objectives in this mission, and important in helping Iraq get on its feet, if only for morale purposes.
That being said, I have 2 more questions

1. what are they going to do with him?

2. Are we ever going to find whats even more important then saddam, the WMD or Bin Ladin?

I'd say Bush's second term is pretty much locked in at this point.  I just enjoy the fact the operation was titled "Red Dawn."

This is good, but he's probably no less of a threat now that he's captured than when he was sitting in a hole. Saddam never operated like Osama. He was a dictator, not a terrorist conspirator. He probably has more power now that he's in the public eye.

QuoteI'd say Bush's second term is pretty much locked in at this point.

What a horrible thing to say >:(. Although, it may be true :P.

Now the question is, do American's leave. That's it. Threat of Saddam retaking power is completely over. Regime crushed. No more excuses.

Of course we will occupy Iraq until I'm old and withered.

Panda: I think that liberals and conservatives both can agree that not having Saddam in power or in threat of being in power is a good thing. They just disagree on how it happened ;D.

later,
-junc

Maybe we should now try and get Osama Bin Laden.

Quote from: Nostradamus on Sun 14/12/2003 16:53:00
It is confirmed that Saddam Hussein, the REAL Saddam Hussein is indeed captured. They did teeth tests & DNA testes which prove that Saddam Hussein was captured.

That's what I was going to say. There is no way those tests can lie. HE IS CAPTURED.
FINALLY!!!!  :)

What's gonna happen to him next? :o

Quote from: juncmodule on Sun 14/12/2003 17:39:58
Panda: I think that liberals and conservatives both can agree that not having Saddam in power or in threat of being in power is a good thing. They just disagree on how it happened ;D.

It's like how different religions disagree on how exactly we should love our neighbours.
Expect this to go on for a long time. :P

Mmmm... Something said to me that a lot of people would receive this as bad news...  :P

Considering the Bush administration's cronies are making a nice profit in Iraq: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20031212_1665.html

I expect that the US won't pull out soon. Unless of course, people complain that they can't afford the war anymore, then maybe. Otherwise, three cheers for capitalism!!

Maybe the weapons of mass destruction were hidden in Saddam's hugemongous beard  ;)

Quote from: OneThinkingGal and ._. on Sun 14/12/2003 16:48:45
Its irrelevant either way.

OTG, could you explain what you mean? I'm confused by it.

As happy as i am with the capture of Saddam. I would feel alot better if Bin Laden would have been captured.  But i'm pretty sure he will be caught sooner or later, and punished!! We need to take out the mastermind behind most of the terrorism that has happened to the United States and its allies.

Duffman thrusts in Sadams direction.

Quote from: WanderLady on Sun 14/12/2003 19:14:56

Quote from: OneThinkingGal and ._. on Sun 14/12/2003 16:48:45
Its irrelevant either way.

OTG, could you explain what you mean? I'm confused by it.

Meaning, who cares. Saddam was only the target of the war because he had these supposed weapons on mass destruction, which were all false claims.

Without them, he was just a dictator with a dream, much like the ones in Cuba or North Korea. Of course, they don't have oil to use for kickbacks to Bush's buddies, so there's no way taxpayers' money will be spent on going to war with them.

w00t. Captur3d!

Bush just wanted his precious weapons of mass destruction back :P

My thoughts regarding Saddams capture

The question now is where Saddam should be put to trial. Should it be an international trial or not. How would justice best be served. My money is on a trial in Iraq, so that the people of Iraq can deal with this themselves.
As for the terrorists/"armed people that disagree with USA" half of them will propably give up now, while the other half will be twice as pissed.
I am also a bit surprised how so many people just say: "Oh, they did a DNA-test. It's him!" For now we only have the word of an administration that has admitted before to "pass on wrongful information"/lie to it's own people.
Just want to remind everyone that we live in a time where wars are fought in the media more than on the battlefield. This puts the people of all countries in the crossfire. Who cares if the information is false, as long as it makes people behave the way they should? Much is required from us every day to decode information, connect the dots and confirm our sources. When they say they have evidence, I say: "Show it!"
I'll take the word of a friend, but not the word of ANY government in the world today.

Quote from: OneThinkingGal and ._. on Sun 14/12/2003 19:31:29
Saddam was only the target of the war because he had these supposed weapons on mass destruction, which were all false claims.

Without them, he was just a dictator with a dream, much like the ones in Cuba or North Korea. Of course, they don't have oil to use for kickbacks to Bush's buddies, so there's no way taxpayers' money will be spent on going to war with them.

Whether this is true or not, I don't know, but as for who cares...

Quote from: OneThinkingGal and ._. on Sun 14/12/2003 19:31:29
Meaning, who cares.

...Surely, oppressed Iraqis who were under this dictator care. Soldiers, who may be able to come home now, must care. Their families, who've waited in fear, care that this has happened. There are many to whom this is very relevant.

That's really what Bush is counting on, to turn this into a 'humanitarian feel-good mission'. And I think he will succeed. :) If that's what this is about, why Iraq and why not Cuba?

How much better off are the iraqis? All the shia-sunni stuff will continue, there will still be killings, only now there won't be anyone specific to blame. Its the cultural and religious sitation of the region, one which the US can do nothing about, except maybe make it worse.

One (terrorist) down, three (Bin Laden, Bush & Blair) to go.

And Aznar!  ;D

Quote from: juncmodule on Sun 14/12/2003 17:39:58
Now the question is, do American's leave. That's it. Threat of Saddam retaking power is completely over. Regime crushed. No more excuses.

This is not that simple. If the Americans leave Iraq as it is (what I am against, for more reasons than the one stated later), civil war will break out. Not only is it bad, Bush will have it on his ass, and he knows it. However, staying in the current position isn't good as well. So it's a deadlock, at the moment.

QuoteOne (terrorist) down, three (Bin Laden, Bush & Blair) to go

And Chirac & Schröder.

Holy shit!!!

They caught Saddam??

I give it 2 days (tops) before the media somehow spins this into a bad thing.

And of course the U.S. isn't going to simply leave Iraq.  It's going to be admitted to the Union.  They're going to change the name of it to Bushland.

Yay capitilism!!

])]v[

we'll do what we always do- the americans will leave someone with our interests in our place, so that we look justified and all that.     But whoever we put in power will exploit that power and we will have to come back and fight them years from now.

The claimed dna tests can be trusted just as much as one would trust iraqi information minister. You all saw the pictures. They captured Santa.


There will be no Christmas this year.

Now this is all very good and well, but two things:

1) if Saddam has spent the last few months hiding in a hole in the ground without so much as a mobile phone, he has hardly been commanding the insurgency against the coalition troops; therefore, his arrest is unlikely to have an impact on the attacks, which are apparently largely committed by terrorists from neighbouring countries who have come into Iraq to destabilise it
2) where are the WMD's?

Also, how on earth did they do this DNA test? Where would the US troops have got a sample of Saddam's DNA from previously to test it against?

They were taken in the early 80s (1981, i think)

(http://www.peppernirvana.com/santa.jpg)

Hmmm..

Quote from: Pumaman on Sun 14/12/2003 21:51:46
Now this is all very good and well, but two things:

2) where are the WMD's?

Also, how on earth did they do this DNA test? Where would the US troops have got a sample of Saddam's DNA from previously to test it against?

Let´s hope that Saddam himself reveals where the WMD´s are, if they exist, so, we can still have a "little" confidence in the CIA...

And about the DNA... I asked that to myself before, and I think that they must have a lot of DNA of him, razors in their palaces, during the official visits... anyway, they have the bodies of their two sons, so, a reliable DNA test can be made.

EDIT: which makes me feel strange... Can many agencies be recollecting people´s dna in secrecy? brrrr...  :-[

Quote from: Privateer Puddin' on Sun 14/12/2003 22:11:42
(http://www.peppernirvana.com/santa.jpg)

Hmmm..

YOU BEAT ME TO IT YOU BITCH!!!

That rat has grown a longer beard since we saw him last.

saddam says there were no WMD.
In fact...every top scientist there said there was no wmd

hmm. I guess I really cant take what the rat has to say seriously...but still

I imagine that the families of the almost one million people that Saddam is estimated to have mass-murdered are pretty happy about his capture.

I'm hoping that this is a good thing for the Iraqi people.  However, after the media's misleading reporting on 9/11, I'm not willing to take the media's word for it that all of the Iraqi people are thrilled about this.  

As mentioned long ago in the war thread, I was against the war but since they went ahead and did it, at least it yielded something semi-tangible.  As to the DNA test, I've heard they had previous DNA-samples collected from his nosehair trimmer.  ;)

The WMD question: recently there was a report that a top Iraqi army general had stated that they had WMD's hidden on their front lines.  These were small biological/chemical warheads meant to be fired as an RPG.  They were supposedly under orders not to use them until specifically ordered to by Saddam.  As to the validity of this report . . . I'll take that with a grain of salt.  

Someone asked what sort of trial he was due.  The news reports state that he is to be trial as a war-criminal in Iraqi courts for crimes against the Iraqi people, with the whole event overseen by UN advisors.  How large a role the UN-reps are going to play in that, there's no telling yet.

I think Yoke's predicition is accurate.  We'll have pissed off half of the terrorists and the other half won't give a shit.  Hopefully, this doesn't spawn more large-scale terrorism in the US.  I have no doubt that there will at least be attempts soon.

Yes, it's pretty obvious that the socalled search for WD40 was really just an excuse to go in and get Saddam, which should have happened in 91.

whether the WD40 exist or not in Iraq has really been irrelevent in what's been happening. It's good that they have captured the Evil Dictator, but as others have said, It's just one man (although they have already captured some of his mates) and there are pleanty of other people who are just as evil.

We don't even hear about what's happening in Afghanistan, which is where it all began after 11/9 before it got sidetracked and surprise surprise somehow ended up in Iraq.

Bush has achieved all he wanted all along now, so hopefully he can just get fucked, it was just personal family business.

Nothing much has really changed, he was doing nothing in a hole, now he is out of a hole.

THe question is what will happen now. Where will he be tried? What will be his punishment?

There's no reason he should be taken to the US, why would that even be a consideration, what has it got to do with the US justice system. He was in Iraq, captured in Iraq so it seems logical to be tried there. by who I don't know.

The problem is it is likely he will be executed, which is too good for him, he deserves to be interrogated and psychologically tortured for the rest of his life. That would be much worse than death.

As for the Iraqi people, we will see much more footage of the people against Saddam, where I'm sure there is still pleanty of support for him.
It will still be a long time before they can repair the country, physically and psychologically, and I'm sure some children that have lived through this will become the next generation of pissed off leaders with similar attitudes and start this cycle over again.

So only time will tell whether what has happened is a good or bad thing (and by time I don't mean short term, ie atleast 30-40 years and onward)


The events that have occurred in the last few years are exactly like a thread on these forums that goes completely off topic, just with fewer deaths. (well maybe just a few more)

Quote from: Pumaman on Sun 14/12/2003 21:51:46
1) if Saddam has spent the last few months hiding in a hole in the ground without so much as a mobile phone, he has hardly been commanding the insurgency against the coalition troops; therefore, his arrest is unlikely to have an impact on the attacks, which are apparently largely committed by terrorists from neighbouring countries who have come into Iraq to destabilise it

The following analysis by DebkaFile (http://www.debka.com) provides a pretty good explanation:

QuoteA number of questions are raised by the incredibly bedraggled, tired and crushed condition of this once savage, dapper and pampered ruler who was discovered in a hole in the ground on Saturday, December 13:

1. The length and state of his hair indicated he had not seen a barber or even had a shampoo for several weeks.

2. The wild state of his beard indicated he had not shaved for the same period

3. The hole dug in the floor of a cellar in a farm compound near Tikrit was primitive indeed â€" 6ft across and 8ft across with minimal sanitary arrangements - a far cry from his opulent palaces.

4. Saddam looked beaten and hungry.

5. Detained trying to escape were two unidentified men. Left with him were two AK-47 assault guns and a pistol, none of which were used.

6. The hole had only one opening. It was not only camouflaged with mud and bricks â€" it was blocked. He could not have climbed out without someone on the outside removing the covering.

7. And most important, $750,000 in 100-dollar notes were found with him (a pittance for his captors who expected a $25m reward)â€" but no communications equipment of any kind, whether cell phone or even a carrier pigeon for contacting the outside world.

According to DEBKAfile analysts, these seven anomalies point to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein was not in hiding; he was a prisoner.

After his last audiotaped message was delivered and aired over al Arabiya TV on Sunday November 16, on the occasion of Ramadan, Saddam was seized, possibly with the connivance of his own men, and held in that hole in Adwar for three weeks or more, which would have accounted for his appearance and condition. Meanwhile, his captors bargained for the $25 m prize the Americans promised for information leading to his capture alive or dead. The negotiations were mediated by Jalal Talabani’s Kurdish PUK militia.

These circumstances would explain the ex-ruler’s docility â€" described by Lt.Gen. Ricardo Sanchez as “resignation” â€" in the face of his capture by US forces. He must have regarded them as his rescuers and would have greeted them with relief.

From Gen. Sanchez’s evasive answers to questions on the $25m bounty, it may be inferred that the Americans and Kurds took advantage of the negotiations with Saddam’s abductors to move in close and capture him on their own account, for three reasons:

A. His capture had become a matter of national pride for the Americans. No kudos would have been attached to his handover by a local gang of bounty-seekers or criminals. The country would have been swept anew with rumors that the big hero Saddam was again betrayed by the people he trusted, just as in the war.

B. It was vital to catch his kidnappers unawares so as to make sure Saddam was taken alive. They might well have killed him and demanded the prize for his body. But they made sure he had no means of taking his own life and may have kept him sedated.

C. During the weeks he is presumed to have been in captivity, guerrilla activity declined markedly â€" especially in the Sunni Triangle towns of Falluja, Ramadi and Balad - while surging outside this flashpoint region â€" in Mosul in the north and Najef, Nasseriya and Hilla in the south. It was important for the coalition to lay hands on him before the epicenter of the violence turned back towards Baghdad and the center of the Sunni Triangle.

As for the people who still doubt it's the real Saddam - it just shows how biased you are.

So Barcik, after pasting someone's detailed and thought-provoking theory on the current events, you simply want to insult those who are skeptical?


I believe it is the real Saddam, regardless of explaination, but to call someone bias is to call someone "someone else".

That post brought up a couple very interesting questions.  It's a shame they made a point that's nullified by current knowledge.  One of the observations (point B) states that they left him with no way to end his life.  However, the last news report I read stated that he was found with a loaded pistol on his lap (which remained unused).  The theorizing itself includes the following fact: "Left with him were two AK-47 assault guns and a pistol, none of which were used.
"  Damned good thing you can't kill yourself with automatic rifles or pistols.  

It's also a bit of a shame that you ended your post on that note.  Biased does not mean stupid, wrong or bad.  It means to be pre-disposed to take one position or another based on personal beliefs or situation.  I really don't see how disbelieving a person's identity can show their prejudice.  Ah,well.

Quote from: EvenWolf on Mon 15/12/2003 10:11:55
So Barcik, after pasting someone's detailed and thought-provoking theory on the current events, you simply want to insult those who are skeptical?


I believe it is the real Saddam, regardless of explaination, but to call someone bias is to call someone "someone else".

Where is the insult?  ???

I believe the explanation has nothing to do with Saddam being real or fake. It was in response to CJ saying that Saddam arranged all the attacks from this hole. The analysis shows that, at least at first, Saddam had the desturctive potential to lead the guerilla fight.

I think that to disagree with a bold fact such as Saddam's capture is a sure sign of a person being prejudiced against the US' word.

There's a lot of cash to be reaped off the Iraqis and Bush probably wants as much as he can fleece without people noticing. Pretending they're not looking for money and digging up dictators and looking for WMDs they'll never find is just a way of hiding that.

Makes you wonder what he's spending it all on. America has a national debt that jumps by $2.34 billion per day, but judging by his usual mentality, a f***ing huge coffee machine is probably on the Bush wish list this Christmas.

"7. And most important, $750,000 in 100-dollar notes were found with him (a pittance for his captors who expected a $25m reward)â€" but no communications equipment of any kind, whether cell phone or even a carrier pigeon for contacting the outside world."

If the $750K was a pittance from the army to Saddam's captors, why would they even report its existence to the media, and moreover- why would the money still be in the Army's hands?

(http://sylpher.com/evenwolf/random/hole4.jpg)

This doesn't disprove the overall captor theory.  Afterall, it would be more plausible that the military paid its entire debt to the captors and that the 750k is simply a ploy to convince disbelievers that it actually is Saddam.  But who's to say 750k isn't simply the severance pay for one of Saddam's doubles.  Haha.

Besides what gives those supposed captors any more credibility of distinguishing Saddam from a double?  I pose this only to Barcik, who appears to view that one quote to be hard evidence. Could not a double have been held captive just as easily as the real Saddam?

I repeat, the captivity theory is not evidence that it is the real Saddam. It has nothing to do with it.

I am just saying that such hard cold facts aren't stated without sufficient proof.
/me gets ready for WMD accusation.

Barcik, maybe you need to edit your original post- because the one thing you DO say is that it has everything to do with him being real or fake.  Quotes only tell us what other people think, and juxtapositions of quotes only inform us that you see a conflict of interest.  What lacks is your own argument- which you keep defending without much detail.

Quote from: Barcik@School on Mon 15/12/2003 10:19:51
I think that to disagree with a bold fact such as Saddam's capture is a sure sign of a person being prejudiced against the US' word.

Wouldn't anyone in their right mind be prejudiced against U.S. word?

Real or fake?  This is one thing that isn't disputed too much.  Since there have been DNA and dental tests performed to verify his identity, it is very likely that he is the genuine article.  Of course, we have only the authorities' word for it that these tests were performed (and performed correctly) but the chances that they're lying about that are slim.  

Upon reading the first couple lines of Barcik's quoted post, I thought they might be leading us to a different conclusion which is also possible.  There are no facts that can currently dispute this with absolute certainty:

Bush & Intelligence personnel (we hear more about them now than we have in the past.  Perhaps it's because he needs them more than anyone else did? :P) and the military captured Saddam some time ago.  He was sealed in a location and guarded by native troops disloyal to him.  Bush wanted Saddam's capture "under-wraps" in order to continue his conquest of Iraq with the continued pre-texts of searching for WMD & Saddam.  Some event happened to make Bush decide to unveil his prize.  Perhaps he wants the year to end on a Bush-positive note?  Maybe he was saving it for a time when people were the most skeptical of his tactics.  Just a half-assed theory.  ;)

[edit: Makri, good point. It's especially prudent to doubt the word of a Bush]

Quote from: makri on Mon 15/12/2003 10:56:48

Quote from: Barcik@School on Mon 15/12/2003 10:19:51
I think that to disagree with a bold fact such as Saddam's capture is a sure sign of a person being prejudiced against the US' word.

Wouldn't anyone in their right mind be prejudiced against U.S. word?

Who are you to say who is in the right mind or not Makri? Are you God? If so, make me know, I´ll try to treat you with the respect that a divinity with the overwhelming power of knowing what is good and what is evil.  :P

Don´t say that everyone who doesn´t have prejudices against the U.S. is mad, you´re insulting a lot of american AGSers.  :P

Sorry, Farl, but I agree with him.  I'm an American and I like my country quite a bit.  However, I like it for its people and not its politicians.  Perhaps I could feel otherwise but, damn it, I read.
[edit: I do, however, want to make it perfectly clear that I don't think much more of governments or politicians worldwide.  I'm certainly not self-centered enough to believe that only the US has manipulative persons in high places]

But Makri does not attack the Bush administration... he says... "U.S."

You can think he´s made a slight unintentioned mistake... well, I can´t be sure, but I think that Makri is just another case of the new fashion who crosses Europe... I hate the U.S.!

Quote from: YakSpit on Mon 15/12/2003 11:03:07
Bush & Intelligence personnel (we hear more about them now than we have in the past.  Perhaps it's because he needs them more than anyone else did? :P)

The CIA has had a tendency in the past of supporting the presidential canidate that is willing to give them the biggest budget and the loosest reigns. One can only speculate that the whole Monica Lewinsky-thing was part of the help Bush got from the CIA.
Anyway...
That's the reason, I think, that we hear more about Intelligence Operations (such a catchy name too). Intelligence agencies work to keep secrets and find out secrets. Their job creates a division between the people, who are kept in the dark, and the government who are supposed to be the representatives of the people. It doesn't get better when the intelligence agencies keeps information from the government it's supposed be an instrument of, only to get bigger funding. So the REAL $64.000 question is: Does George W. Bush know the REAL reason for attacking Iraq. I mean, these people got their jobs because they are REALLY GOOD with all this "Cloak and dagger"-stuff. I'm quite sure they can outwit both Georgie and his staff.

sorry for ranting... :)

Quote from: Lance Farlandstrong on Mon 15/12/2003 11:34:06
But Makri does not attack the Bush administration... he says... "U.S."

You can think he´s made a slight unintentioned mistake... well, I can´t be sure, but I think that Makri is just another case of the new fashion who crosses Europe... I hate the U.S.!

You are awfully quick to dismiss everyone who disagree with you as "fashion followers". Maybe you should wake up and realize that most people have good reasons for their opinions. Or are you defending U.S. just because you think it's cool and makes you different?

"U.S. word" naturally stands for the administration - that's what Barcik ment in his post and that's where I replied. I forgive you for your mistake.

Of course, if it's not the real Saddam, all the real one has to do to prove them wrong is get a photo of himself holding the "Santa" picture and laughing taken and distribute it to the world. But thyen, maybe that's what the Americans want: they're staking out every chemists in Iraq, ready to pounce when he goes to get them developed...

Ok, to make it all clear.

The quoted segment from Debka.com came in response to CJ's post. He said that Saddam was leading the guerilla fight from that hole of his. So, I brought up this theory that he really was being held captive in that hole.

The comment in the end of it had nothing to do with my respone to CJ. It was a respone to people saying that the person shown on footage's is a double. I said that not to accept such a bold fact a person must be seriously prejudiced against the American administration's work. This is not something Bush can be lying about.

Saddam's captured = Bush will win the elections = what this whole war was all about + enstating a new tyrant that's friendly to the US

Everybody's happy!

except maybe those who died (both American and Iraqi) , and their families.

sorry for being so blunt. That's the way I see things. I'm glad a tyrant has fallen though.

Quote from: makri on Mon 15/12/2003 12:39:33

Quote from: Lance Farlandstrong on Mon 15/12/2003 11:34:06
But Makri does not attack the Bush administration... he says... "U.S."

You can think he´s made a slight unintentioned mistake... well, I can´t be sure, but I think that Makri is just another case of the new fashion who crosses Europe... I hate the U.S.!

You are awfully quick to dismiss everyone who disagree with you as "fashion followers". Maybe you should wake up and realize that most people have good reasons for their opinions. Or are you defending U.S. just because you think it's cool and makes you different?

"U.S. word" naturally stands for the administration - that's what Barcik ment in his post and that's where I replied. I forgive you for your mistake.

I don´t think that I was on a mistake. Anyway, let me explain the thoughts of many of the people who is following this fashioned wave of antiamericanism.

U.S. helped Pinochet.
U.S. armed Iran.
U.S. armed Noriega, and Saddam, and after that, they invent lies to make war against them and earn money.
U.S. help the Jewish, who have stolen the land to the poor Palestinians.
U.S. avoid to war real dictators, because they´re evil and they must be have trats with them.

Well... so, for this antiamericans, no matter which administration rules U.S. they will always look to their actions with unconfidence.

I don´t know if that´s your case, but, in my country, this people finally agree with the enemies of U.S., and they finally celebrate actions against the U.S. or their interests, such as Palestine terrorism or the 11th of September.

I am not saying that you are one of that, but I must face everyday people who says "I was terribly happy when the towers collapsed, they had it deserved", that´s why I´m so sick when I see any expression that reminds me this.

And excuse me man, but you say that you don´t believe the words of Bush when he says they got Saddam, you remind me a lot to that people who really sicks me.

Anyway, I suppose you were jocking... And of course you have the right to judge the U.S., as a Finnish, a country with a noble recent history...

(http://www.sci.fi/~fta/megerfin8.jpg)
Mmm... a finnish fighter... look at that cross... maybe Finnish don´t should really judge the U.S... :-X

;D Just kidding   ;D

Well... Maybe that post before was too "heavy"... I just wanted to say that judging countries is easy... "americans do bad things, they´re evil"

But that who is free of sin, throw the first stone... All the countries behaved terribly when they ruled the Earth, Romans, Greeks, Spanish, Brits...

So... can we really judge a country? I think we can´t.

Well... I´ve finished, you all can start crushing me.

NOW! ;D

* SSH crushes Farlander for double-posting

Anyway, the reason the USA doesn't invade the REAL threats to world security is the same reason they didn't attack the USSR during the cold war: they have nukes and would use them. That is why the idea of WMD in Iraq is laughable...

btw, you know that Chernoybl translated to "Wormwood" in English?

No...  I didn´t know that or the worm...

Well SSH... I would agree with the antiamerican statement that US only invades the countries he is interested in, avoiding some others ruled by dictators, such some of the Black-Africa countries (Nigeria, Sierra Leona, Cote D´Ivory, Liberia...).

That countries do not have nukes.

But the problem is that many people complain when US attacks.

The funny thing is that,when they attack, they complain even more.

I remember that the day after the attack on Iraq 3,000 heads appeared in a Square of the Capital of Sierra Leona, but nobody cared... Seems that only count the deaths caused by the US bombs, that makes me feel that there poeple who hides themselves behind the "NOT FOR WAR" banners, which really mean is "NOT TO THE U.S."

And that´s really sad because mixtured in that mass of people who is antiamerican and say "Not for war", there are a lot of people who don´t really like the war, and it´s difficult to differenciate them.

That´s why I take sometimes this deffensive attitude, because hidden in a disguise of pacifism and good intentions there are sometimes "evil" intentions.

Of course, I am not saying that some of the AGSers belong to this group...  

Svastika used by Finnish Air Forces (and still used today by some branches of our army) had nothing to do with German National Socialist symbols. Then again, as you were just kidding you probably already knew that.

I'm not Anti-American. I've got family in The States. I am, however, against the foreign policy U.S. has been practicing this -and most of the previous- century. I'm also worried and sceptical towards current US domestic policies.

My North American family pretty much shares the same political views than me.

Quote from: SSH on Mon 15/12/2003 14:30:44
btw, you know that Chernoybl translated to "Wormwood" in English?

Well I don't, and I wasn't born very far away from it. In fact, I was born just a bit before it happened. Maybe that's why I came out this way spikgjkldtjklreht9peqroewdvz.  :P

Then again, I never really learned Ukrainian.

For those who said Saddam was not a threat to the world, here are the FACTS:
1) Saddam invaded Iran in the 80's in effort to take territorries, a war that ran 8 years with 400,000 Iranians and 100,000 Iraqis killed in the war
2) Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait taking advantage of its oil fields in 1991.
3) Saddam sent missiles at Saudi Arabia & Israel in the Golf War in 1991 despite although those countries were not involved in the war.

For OTG and others who say he did not have unconventional weapons here are the FACTS:
1) Over 100,000 Iraqis, Kurds especially, were killed by orders of Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons (gas). The only one who ever did that since the Nazis in World War II. And that's in his OWN country!
2) After the 1991 Golf War hundreds of chemical & biological missileheads were found and destroyed by the UN.
3) Saddam himself threated to use chemical & biological warfare on those who attack him.

For those who doubt it's the real Saddam - the US would not release such a statement before they were absolutely sure it's really him with the DNA tests because they know it would be a huge blow if someone fnids out he was a fake and they lied.

For those asking what they were going to do with him:
1) They're gonna inspect him in effort to find out the whereabouts of unconventional weapons in Iraq.
2) They're gonna put him on trial, with Iraqi judges invovled for his crimes against humanity

Quote
3) Saddam himself threated to use chemical & biological warfare on those who attack him.

I always assumed he had them.  So why didn't he use them?

I'm glad he's captured.  It doesn't justify the war, but he deserves whatever he gets.

Quote from: Nostradamus on Mon 15/12/2003 17:00:49
For those who said Saddam was not a threat to the world, here are the FACTS:
1) Saddam invaded Iran in the 80's in effort to take territorries, a war that ran 8 years with 400,000 Iranians and 100,000 Iraqis killed in the war

And during that war, the US, UK and France sold Saddam thousands of weapons because he was seen as the good guy. In fact, I think he got them for free because he defaulted on his payments.

Thousands of weapons which he has since used against coalition forces.

Quote from: Nostradamus on Mon 15/12/2003 17:00:49
For those who said Saddam was not a threat to the world, here are the FACTS:

I think everyone's point is just there; after all that Iraq  military was weakened to a point it wasn't a serious threat to anyone.

Quote from: makri on Mon 15/12/2003 15:30:23
Svastika used by Finnish Air Forces (and still used today by some branches of our army) had nothing to do with German National Socialist symbols. Then again, as you were just kidding you probably already knew that.

I'm not Anti-American. I've got family in The States. I am, however, against the foreign policy U.S. has been practicing this -and most of the previous- century. I'm also worried and sceptical towards current US domestic policies.

My North American family pretty much shares the same political views than me.

The fact that Germany and Finland were allies during the war is a fact. Anyway, I don´t judge States, that´s your speciallity... in addition, Spain was also an Ally of the Nazis wasn´t it?  ;)

Thanks for making me clear that you are not an irrational anti-american. Now, if you don´t like what happens there, become a U.S. citizen and vote and deffend the political choice you want.

no, spain wasnt!! They teach us here in the states the the Spanish were facists, but never actually signed on with the ITalians and the Germans. For that matter, Argentina was also facist, but I think their offical stance in WWII in neutral, as Brasil was pro America, and Im sure that some south american battles would have occured if the argentinians were openly pro-nazi

Unless I am mistaken. You are spanish after all.

Spain didn´t joined because it couldn´t... Remember that it just came form the civil war (1936-39). Anyway... But I said that Spain AIDED, sending the "blue division" to Russia.

A friend of my grandpa fighted in that group, and he told me amazing stories of the war in Russia, I specially like the battle of Stalingrad. I love the part when he said that he once looked over the trench and he saw a tracer bullet going directly to where he was. He never looked again... ;D

I also remember histories about how cruel was the winter in Russia, and how expensive they sold the coffee to the german officers.

But I have more histories... The father of one of my nuns blew his hand with a granade, in a battle against the Fascist in the civil war (I would like to tell a tale of heroism, but the granade was his... ;D). Another one was killed in a fascist prison. An uncle of my grandpa was half japanese and he fighted with a russian fighter in the civil war. When the war ended, he was exiliated to the US, where the only way to avoid prison after Pearl Harbour (He was half-japanese and an inmigrant from the fascist Spain) was to instruct newbie pilots. His plane was shoot down over the Adriatic in 1944...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/rahman.html

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html
Yes dodgy site, but there's evidence of the same report elsewhere. Search for the title. May or may not be true, but something to think about anyway.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/talabani.html

Annie... that´s unfair... I could look for centenars of websites giving credibility, and evidences, that the moster of the Loch Ness exist. And we do know that it doesn´t. Conclussion: If you google for something, you´ll find a lot of evidences of that. Assuming that, we will never know if Saddam was powerfull enough or not, it is just a matter of the oppinion you had before the conflict.

This is boring. The non-war have showed their oppinions. The yes-to-war, also. So, why going with this discussion?

:P

How is it unfair that I can't post links(aside from the second) that are interviews of people who were actually THERE and you can spout second hand knowledge without a source?  ???

There's always more than one story, don't believe everything you're told by the government or the media, or anyone else with an agenda. Like me.   :P

In the end, people will believe what they want to, I just point out there's more than one side to the story.

Quote from: Barcik on Mon 15/12/2003 13:30:18
Ok, to make it all clear.
The quoted segment from Debka.com came in response to CJ's post. He said that Saddam was leading the guerilla fight from that hole of his. So, I brought up this theory that he really was being held captive in that hole.

Sorry but that's the second time the mighty CJ was referenced incorrectly.  He stated that Saddam was NOT orchestrating military actions from his hole.
"1) if Saddam has spent the last few months hiding in a hole in the ground without so much as a mobile phone, he has hardly been commanding the insurgency against the coalition troops; therefore, his arrest is unlikely to have an impact on the attacks, which are apparently largely committed by terrorists from neighbouring countries who have come into Iraq to destabilise it"

I would seem his point was that military actions by Iraqi factions would not decrease after Saddam's capture as Saddam must've had very little influence there.  

Onward!

On the previously mentioned discussion of whether Spain was allied with Germany:
I believe that Spain remained neutral throughout the war. However, they might as well have been allied with Germany. On the other hand, one act by the Spanish government (with the endorsement of an extremely high-ranking Nazi official whose name escapes me) greatly helped to speed up Germany losing the war.
You see, at this time the Allies had claimed the Straits of Gibralter, and were proceeding to take North Africa, Italy, and the likes. If Hitler had been able to take the Straits back, it would have been a brutal blow to the allied war machine. Rather then spending Germany's already spread-thin military to invade yet another country, Hitler saw that he could probably convince the Spanish government to simply let the German army pass through freely. Before he went to negociate himself, however, he sent the aforementioned official. An unwise move, on Hitler's part. You see, this official, like many in latter-day Nazi Germany, was beginning to lose trust in Hitler, and took steps to see that he lost the war. This official also happened to be a close personal friend to many people in the Spanish government, and he quickly convinced them to not let Hitler freely move through Spain. Spain listened, and when Hitler himself came, the Spanish agreed to let him move his military, but set a ludicrous fee on the deal. Of course, Hitler didn't have the resources to pay the fee or enough resources to invade Spain, so he gave up on retaking the Straits.
Of course, the Straits proved invaluable to the Allied war effort.
So, to answer your question, they might as well have been allies, at least through most of the war, but Spain inadvertently delivered a crushing blow to the Nazi war effort.
Pretty much sure that those details are right, if my memory serves me well.

Anyway, on this whole Saddam thing, I'll just classify myself as 'Anti-Saddam'.

Quote from: OneThinkingGal and ._. on Tue 16/12/2003 00:24:11

There's always more than one story, don't believe everything you're told by the government or the media, or anyone else with an agenda. Like me.   :P

In the end, people will believe what they want to, I just point out there's more than one side to the story.

That´s the point... you believe what you want, like me. I have also interviews of people who was there saying that the chem weapons were going to be used, but I don´t post them here, because I don´t think it could change nobody´s mind (In fact, I don´t think that nobody would care) :P

Bob: I don´t remember that history of the German officer, and I am quite expert in the WWII. What I do remember is a meeting between Franco and Hitler in Hendaya (Spanish-French boarder), which finished in a big failure because Franco said Hitler that Spain was not able to aid them propperly. I know that Hitler even planned to take Gibraltar, with the spanish permission or not, they had even a reproduction of the british fortress in somewhere in Germany, so the German special forces could started practising.

But Hitler again received a negative answer by Franco, and it was in Hitler´s mind to invade Spain. I agree with you that not closing the Mediterranean with the conquest of Gibraltar was a huge tactical mistake.

Quote from: Bob the Hun on Tue 16/12/2003 07:26:40
Anyway, on this whole Saddam thing, I'll just classify myself as 'Anti-Saddam'.

Hah! I scoff at you! I am 'Pro-Saddam.'  I believe that he's done some naughty things but that deep-down he's actually good at heart.  Yay, Saddam!  

[Paid for by the Coalition to Free Saddam]

Quote from: YakSpit on Tue 16/12/2003 05:01:34

Quote from: Barcik on Mon 15/12/2003 13:30:18
Ok, to make it all clear.
The quoted segment from Debka.com came in response to CJ's post. He said that Saddam was leading the guerilla fight from that hole of his. So, I brought up this theory that he really was being held captive in that hole.

Sorry but that's the second time the mighty CJ was referenced incorrectly.  He stated that Saddam was NOT orchestrating military actions from his hole.
"1) if Saddam has spent the last few months hiding in a hole in the ground without so much as a mobile phone, he has hardly been commanding the insurgency against the coalition troops; therefore, his arrest is unlikely to have an impact on the attacks, which are apparently largely committed by terrorists from neighbouring countries who have come into Iraq to destabilise it"

I would seem his point was that military actions by Iraqi factions would not decrease after Saddam's capture as Saddam must've had very little influence there.  

Onward!

So what I am trying to say is that Saddam wasn't in that hole all the time. Before being kidnapped, if that theory is correct, he could have had all the requirements to arrange the guerilla war. So, perhaps saying Saddam had little influence is incorrect. But, it's all just theories.

Oh, and I am sorry to be laughing at a person's spelling mistakes (I know I have my share), but Nostardamus' "Golf War" made me laugh hysterically.

Christ. This topic is already reaching the critical mass.

A few points:

Yes, both sides have had their say but the discussion shouldn't stop until it reaches a conclusion. If that takes a century, so be it. You'll feel better for it in the end, although at least admit when you're wrong and someone points that out.

You might think the other guy is an idiot but if he's right then accept it.

No, the US are not evil. They just put too much confidence in their government and manage to occasionally vote in power-crazed imbeciles to run the country once in a while. England did that too, remember? Tony Blair is a git. Everyone knows he's a git. His Mum probably thinks he's a git. He's running the country. How the hell did we fall for that one?

The only thing that separates the two countries is the power they wield. America can wipe out life as we know it and England can.. er.. ..uh. Yeah.

And no, there is nothing wrong with posting links as some form of evidence, so long as they are from a reliable source and  don't come from a website that has a forum where most of the regulars believe the Earth is being secretly run by a clandestine order of homicidal owls.

I was going to stay out of this thread because I know how these things go.  I know that some just aren't going to agree with what is so obvious to me just as I'm not going to agree with what is so obvious to them.

Having said that, I do have something to contribute:

SSH

QuoteAnyway, the reason the USA doesn't invade the REAL threats to world security is the same reason they didn't attack the USSR during the cold war: they have nukes and would use them. That is why the idea of WMD in Iraq is laughable...

This was always in the back of my mind.  I figured it was because they thought Iraq had the weapons, just not the delivery systems.  So the real threat of WMD was on the battlefield.  I think the REAL threat is from countries who have ICBMs and Nuclear subs ... stuff like that.

In my opinion, the U.S. not attacking Russia during the Cold War, and now staying away from other REAL threats like North Korea, is only common sense.  Nuclear weapons have become FAR more a defensive tool than an offensive one.  North Korea knows full well we won't send troops in because they have the ability to attack the U.S. with nukes.

So in this case, diplomatic routes (and ominous threats of world destruction) are really the only logical, and sane, paths to tread.

Of course, since it's so popular to hate Bush/Blair everybody will say bad things about them and make insults as to why they only attack countries like Iraq (revenge, oil, etc).  All of which may well have merit.

So, like OTG commented on, there's always another side to the story.

I remember how much I hated Clinton when he was elected and how I complained about it.  It did a lot of good too!  He was immediately taken out of office ... oh wait, he was there for 8 years!!

])]v[

Of course, there's plenty of other good reasons to dislike Bush, the whole "War on people we trained but don't like anymore Terror" aside. Kyoto and:

http://www.thousandreasons.org/listB.html
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/11/281438.html
http://www.fearbush.com

No SSH ... you're wrong ;D;D

I'm not a huge fan of Bush myself.  I guess I just don't see what good it'll do to rip on the guy.  He's not going to resign just 'cause he's not liked by some.

It reminds me of the line in Forest Gump when the boyfriend of Jenny (who Forest beat up at the Black Pantha Pahtee) says, "blah blah blah, and that lying son of a bitch Johnson!!"  Ooh ... I hate the president ... and my hatred of him is going to accomplish SOOOO much!!!

I've never been able to understand why people get so heated about the president.

Oh well ... that's just my side of the story :)

])]v[

Maybe the anti-Bushists are naively hoping that the information that Bush is a lying, nepotistic, cronyist, evil crook will prevail over the millions that Halliburton et al will donate to his campaign for re-election. Silly, I know, but some people hope that people vote for the best candidate, not the one that pours most money into their campaign.

Of course, it would help if the Democrats had a single credible candidate who would stand...

Sure, hating Bush won't accomplish much.

But he's a fucking moron.

And I'll be damned before I start LIKING a fucking moron.

Not only that, he's a fucking moron in one of the most powerful positions in the world.

I mean, the guy can (barely) control a full-scale war on a small country in the Middle East yet he says stupid shit like "All our imports come from overseas!"

Yeah, no shit sherlock!

Even Maddox agrees Bush is a moron: http://maddox.xmission.com/limits_to_freedom.html

To quote Maddox: "He is a moron."

Maddox even goes so far to suggest a box of Tic Tacs would make a better president: http://maddox.xmission.com/tictacs.html

Sure, the article is humourous, but Maddox makes a pretty convincing argument.

Even his poll shows more people agree a box of Tic Tacs makes a better president.

So, I think it's pretty obvious why so many get heated about the president: He's a fucking moron appointed to one of the most powerful positions in the world.

Shouldn't we have someone who's... umm... responsible... and ohh lets say... intelligent... in such a seat of power.

You know? Someone who isn't a crackhead and can crew food properly?

OH WAIT, HOW COULD I HAVE THOUGHT SUCH A STUPID FUCKING THING!?!?!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

P.S. The US economy is also up shit creek due to Bush's mismanagement -- it was reported just a few minutes ago that the US Dollar hit an all-time low against the Euro.

And guess what?

Conspiracy theorists in the US say that it is all an evil plan by Europe to bring down the US Government.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! *boom*

Whoops, fell out of my chair.

Anyway, you've still got to wonder about the oil -- Even when the oil trading currency in Iraq was changed from US Dollars to Euros in Nov 2000.

I don't know if they've changed back already, but something tells me they will.

Cheapr oil for the US -- You bet!

Then the same oil companies that used to sleep with Bush, Cheney, etc can charge 10 times the ordinary price to decent, hard-working Americans (and even a few mean-spirited, slack-arsed ones too).

Huzzah, Bush -- You'll save the ecomony you fucked up in the first place, and all it took was a war!

Quote from: Interference on Tue 16/12/2003 13:35:29
Yes, both sides have had their say but the discussion shouldn't stop until it reaches a conclusion. If that takes a century, so be it.

Good Lord, no!  ;D

Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 16/12/2003 17:19:54And I'll be damned before I start LIKING a fucking moron.

I wasn't saying you should like him, far from it.  I don't like him much myself, but no matter how vocal I get it's not going to change any thing.  So I don't bash him ...

That's all I meant.

And believe me, I never doubted your feelings for the man ;)

I, as a general rule, don't like any politicians.  I think they're all liars and cheats ... but hey, what can I do about it?  I didn't vote for Bush ... but he's still in office and he's probably going to win a second term ... even despite all the people who hate him.

** shrug **

Anybody want to move to the moon with me?

I think him being a retard and a mediocre hack was reason enough to be vocal and bash him.

And it does make a difference: It gives me a chickle!

For example, take these wacky pieces of satire I found on google:

(http://www.antibush.8m.com/lesson.jpg)

(http://www.onecountrylane.com/pparty/bush1sm.jpg)

(http://www.newyorkslime.com/bush-penisdiplomacy.jpg)
(This one if my favourite cause he is riding a large penis, and penises are funny)

HAHAHAHAHA, THEY'RE FUNNY CAUSE THEY'RE TRUE!!!

One point I'd like to make, that really has nothing to do with saddam, I think....Do all the people that blame bush for the economy really think it goes bad in just a couple of years? Isn't it more likely that it was screwed up in the first place? Say with the last president?

DG, you´ve been aggressive, very aggressive in many posts, insulting sometimes, trying to be funny.. and that picture of Bush riding the big penis has been the last straw! >:(









Showing that big penis makes me remind how small my dick is.  :'(

Quote from: Squinky on Tue 16/12/2003 19:17:49
One point I'd like to make, that really has nothing to do with saddam, I think....Do all the people that blame bush for the economy really think it goes bad in just a couple of years? Isn't it more likely that it was screwed up in the first place? Say with the last president?

Another thing that I want to add is that now Bush is blamed for being guilty of having armed Saddam and all that... But let´s remember that it was another president (Reagan?) who did it. That´s so fucking obvious... but sometimes it seems that we forget it.

In fact, Bush can be an arse and all that stuff, but he removed two tyrans of the power, things that no previous president has done since Rooselvelt, I think.

Sorry for the double posting, I was writing in response to DG, when squinky posted  :)

Quote from: Squinky on Tue 16/12/2003 19:17:49
One point I'd like to make, that really has nothing to do with saddam, I think....Do all the people that blame bush for the economy really think it goes bad in just a couple of years? Isn't it more likely that it was screwed up in the first place? Say with the last president?

Acutally, you could even say that the president before that was responsible.

And even the president before THAT.

Reaganomics my arse!

Quote from: Lance Farlandstrong on Tue 16/12/2003 19:27:52
Another thing that I want to add is that now Bush is blamed for being guilty of having armed Saddam and all that... But let´s remember that it was another president (Reagan?) who did it. That´s so fucking obvious... but sometimes it seems that we forget it.

(http://www.msnbc.com/news/1639839.jpg)(http://www.motherjones.com/frontpagegifs/rumsfeld.jpg)
(Left) US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld shaking hands with a good friend in the 80s. (Right) Rumsfeld today with his pet monkey.

I've also got it on video if you've like to see: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/shakinghands_high.wmv

Also, have a think about who was Vice President during the Reagan era.

QuoteIn fact, Bush can be an arse and all that stuff, but he removed two tyrans of the power, things that no previous president has done since Rooselvelt, I think.

Yes, he removed two tyrans of power, but all he's going to do is put two more tyrans of power in place.

"ladies and gentlemen.......we got him"

They even done dna tests.So how can it not be saddam. 8)

Quote from: gandalf654 on Tue 16/12/2003 19:49:19
They even done dna tests.So how can it not be saddam. 8)

You're right!

The DNA tests prove it's Saddam!

After all, the US Government has never falsified reports!

And there are WMDs in Iraq! Seriously!

And the tooth fairy is REAL -- She gangbangs with Santa and the Easter Bunny before a Leprechaun jumps out of her vagina!

Quote from: SSH on Tue 16/12/2003 15:47:20
Of course, there's plenty of other good reasons to dislike Bush, the whole "War on people we trained but don't like anymore Terror" aside.

You can't blame a person for correcting a mistake. Yes, you can blame him for making hte mistake at the first place, but in such a case the correction part is justified.


DG: I hope that was pure sarcasm and that you don't really think it's fake.

Quote from: Barcik on Tue 16/12/2003 20:20:25
DG: I hope that was pure sarcasm and that you don't really think it's fake.

After all the lies the US Government has told over the last few decades, it's kinda hard to not be skeptical.

(http://www.msnbc.com/news/1639839.jpg)

So IT wAs HIIIM!!!11! RETarDed!!1! MOroN!!!1

And I WAS BlaMInG TeH PooR RONalD!

IT WaS DONAlD!!!1! I HATe DONaLDs!!!1!

signed:
(http://www.dragg.net/users/pennywitt/daffy/daffy23.gif)

With all due respect, this is not something they can lie about. Firstly, I don't believe the WMD accusation is a lie. There think there are Iraqi weapons of mass destruction hidden in arab states such as Syria and Lebanon. And the problem is that since the search hasn't ended yet this can't be called a "lie". However, if a nosy reported writes that the Saddam the Americans caught is a double Bush is over.

To make the point more clear - let's take two situations with the WMDs.
1) Bush invented a story about Iraq having WMDs, and is now running a phoney search for them.
2) Bush announced he found the WMDs, when in fact all he has is a rocket-shaped.

Which lie is by far the worse from a public relations point of view?

Quote from: Lance Farlandstrong on Tue 16/12/2003 20:27:58

So IT wAs HIIIM!!!11! RETarDed!!1! MOroN!!!1

And I WAS BlaMInG TeH PooR RONalD!

IT WaS DONAlD!!!1! I HATe DONaLDs!!!1!

A typical Farlander response -- It makes no sense and looks retarded.

Quote from: Barcik on Tue 16/12/2003 20:31:18
With all due respect, this is not something they can lie about. Firstly, I don't believe the WMD accusation is a lie. There think there are Iraqi weapons of mass destruction hidden in arab states such as Syria and Lebanon. And the problem is that since the search hasn't ended yet this can't be called a "lie". However, if a nosy reported writes that the Saddam the Americans caught is a double Bush is over.

To make the point more clear - let's take two situations with the WMDs.
1) Bush invented a story about Iraq having WMDs, and is now running a phoney search for them.
2) Bush announced he found the WMDs, when in fact all he has is a rocket-shaped.

Which lie is by far the worse from a public relations point of view?

Case in point about WMDs -- Bush said in his State of the Union address that Hussein sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

The CIA later said this was untrue (after the war, mind you).

Also, Iraqi scientists say that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program was all a lie -- They basically lied to him on weapons projects to get increase their funding but the money never went to any development of arms.

Also, keep in mind US intelligence sources say the US government were considering planting WMDs in Iraq.

Did you want me to continue?

You can continue, but it will be irrelevent. Because, were it a lie (and I still believe it isn't, and I there is plenty of counter evidence), it will still be a different kind of lie from telling that the US found them when they really didn't.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 16/12/2003 20:46:53

Quote from: Lance Farlandstrong on Tue 16/12/2003 20:27:58

So IT wAs HIIIM!!!11! RETarDed!!1! MOroN!!!1

And I WAS BlaMInG TeH PooR RONalD!

IT WaS DONAlD!!!1! I HATe DONaLDs!!!1!

A typical Farlander response -- It makes no sense and looks retarded.

Lol... the funny thing is that I was pretending to answer like you in that answer  ;D  ;D  ;D

Anyway... I was jocking (As I suppose you were when you told me retarded), but if it is you the only one who has the right to post 1337 and use capitals, make me know, Chris Jones will gladly make a new membergroup for you. :P

We got him!

(http://itsgravy.keenspace.com/extra/banner.gif)

Hogwarts will definately miss him.

But it will be a better place without all those horrid little beasts he keeps letting loose.

Let me start out with saying that I am indeed glad that Suddam is captured. He is an evil man.

I do want to comment, however, that I've noticed a lot of the news reporting Saddam as a rat living in a hole.  So he hid/(was seized) in a hole for protection/(or held for ransom). I doubt if Bush was in such a situation he would be any better. I think any one in there right mind would hide somewhere from the thousands of men with guns looking to kill you. Bush would hide in a twelve foot thick shelter if any threat came so close to him. Not that Saddam isn't a rat, I just find it funny that people say that it's cowardly to fear for ones life and to take steps in order to preserve oneself in such an extreme situation.

I'd also like to comment, that I don't honestly care if he's real or not. I'm fairly certain he is the real deal, but if he's not real, he hopefully won't have any power to strike back.

I'd also like to put this question into play here. What the hell does the U.S. have to do with freeing Iraq? Why should my tax money go to a bunch of people, I personally don't give a shit about. I don't desire any badwill unto them, however, shouldn't they be the ones to pull themselves up and on their way to a better life? What does the U.S. really get from pumping in my tax money to help these people form a firmer better state? Friendship? Better internatonal relationships (because Bush is soooo good at that)? Is it for goodwill? If so, I say get out of there. If the U.S. has nothing to gain from staying there, I say we leave. Does democrisizing a county really keep off a threat, or does it fuel the fire for those who loathe the U.S., like Osama? If someone can give me an answer that shows that the money poured into this endevor will give us more money back, than I'm all for staying there. I'm all for taking out Saddam and his regime  (although, let's state the right reasons, we should kill Saddam, not because of his future threat, but because he has used physical force and brutality and the people should be free of anyone who uses such methods to establish a means to an end). I think all we should do is give the Iraqi's the knowledge to rise up and become prosperous and free, and that's it. The Iraqi's have been treated unfairly and unjustly, the U.S. should indeed do something to get them on their feet, but we should just loan them some guns to control any person who wishes to take a country by force , let them do all the rest, and get the troops the hell out of there.

I'd also like to argue that yes, Saddam brutaly killed people, but that Bush isn't absolved of all guilt because Saddam was a bad man. He might have been had he approached this war differently. Had the puplic not been informed of untruths. Here is a site of the tally of Iraqi deaths.
http://www.antiwar.com/ewens/casualties.html#count
(http://www.antiwar.com/ewens/casualties.html#count)
Note, I do not equate Bush to Saddam. Saddam, is no doubt evil. However, I don't feel Bush went into this war with intentions not good enough to justify these deaths.

I'd also just like to say that Bush is an idiot. I do not like the man at all. I don't blame him, totally, for the economy. 9/11 kicked the economies ass. However, I do not think that Bush's main focus was on the economy, and that under another president our economy might have grown back faster than it currently is. I don't think the U.S. could afford a war of this nature at this time, especially when many people objected to this war. A president's actions should take account the will of the people, the state of the economy, and how imminent a threat there is when undertaking such a huge war. What of the threat of WMD? There are many countries that haven't allowed the U.N. to check to WMD. Why were they not attacked? Isreal is one of these countries, why not attack them? The justification for this war was wrong. So, yes, I am glad that Saddam is killed, but I don't think this war was initiated for the right reasons (Not to say that Isreal would attack the U.S. with WMD, but to use that as a partial reason for attacking should apply to every country that breaks that code.)

The funny thing is, I would be less opposed to this war if it were said, "We're going in there to kill a bastard who is sub-human and doesn't deserve to control people in such a way." Let there be no other reason than this, and the war is justified.

And now I am blabbing...

-MillsJROSS

Quote from: Barcik on Tue 16/12/2003 21:56:17
You can continue, but it will be irrelevent. Because, were it a lie (and I still believe it isn't, and I there is plenty of counter evidence), it will still be a different kind of lie from telling that the US found them when they really didn't.

A lie is still a lie, only the US Government is doing it on a global scale.

Quote from: Lance Farlandstrong on Tue 16/12/2003 23:10:27

Lol... the funny thing is that I was pretending to answer like you in that answer  ;D  ;D  ;D

Anyway... I was jocking (As I suppose you were when you told me retarded), but if it is you the only one who has the right to post 1337 and use capitals, make me know, Chris Jones will gladly make a new membergroup for you. :P

Farlander, I was joking -- That's part of the irony in my comment, that it sounded like something I'd say.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 16/12/2003 23:19:11
Hogwarts will definately miss him.

This is probably the funniest thing I've read all week.  ;D

Well put, Mills.

*Kill Saddam
*Get US troops out - we got our own problems, the economy is among them, and this war ain't cheap. besides they're never going to find those wmd's.
*concentrate on its own economy.
*stop wasting taxpaeyers money rebulding another country that clearly despises the US no matter what they fix.

I was trying sooo hard not to post here.

Next comes the really amazing part.  Most people here will stand here open-mouthed in shock (and awe? ;)) when Bush is elected for a second term.   Yes, our populous is that stupid (at least 51% are, based upon polls).  In a country where only a very small percentage of the citizens actually understand anything about the government or how it works, the Saddam-capture will be enough to clinch the next presidency for him.

Thanks DG MacPhee... That´s been a relief, I was really confused when you told me retarded. :-[

But... if it was ironic... I t´s been funny! Risky.... but funny!  :)

/me parties