Saddam Captured

I've worked with dna testing
can be done in a matter of minutes if you have a smaple to compare it with. and from his sons they already did have a sample.

I say...we should have thrown him into the streets of Baghdad and have him ripped into tiny little pieces by his people....I'm so happy we caught the little prick...I understand there is going to be a surge of retaliation attacks..but that's gonna die off once they see Sadaam is not in power...I'm still convinced this was a justified war...you should have heard what that little shit did to women....goddamn monster....unjustified my ass...and now all of the sudden...lookie lookie...france germany and the ones who didn't want to join now want to...I knew that was going to happen..we should leave them and out and tell them eat our dust because you didn't want to be with us since the beginning...we're cleaning up the trash...and as some people don't see...it's not an easy job....We had every right to go in there...we had to fix out mistake from last time...I almost dropped to the floor when Clinton praised Bush today...now that sends a message to the Democrats...that's my opinion.. >:-p

Its times like these, in the midst of war and terrorism that i just wish for every bomb in the world to suddenly, unexpectedly explode and destroy the earth. That's all i have to say, right now.

"Meet my Melancholy Bluuuuuuueeeeesssss Ahhhhhhhhhh."

THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY ABOUT SADDAM'S CAPTURE.

THE GOOD
Iraq will no longer live under the opression and regime of terror of Saddam Hussein. But keep in mind that Saddam wasn't really a threat to the rest of the world... at least not as much as to his own people.

THE BAD
The whole Iraqi invasion was a silly excuse to put the blame on Hussein for 9/11. Now it will make people forget that Bin Laden is still on the run.

THE UGLY
It might boost Bush's popularity, and help him win the re-election.

To all those claiming this is a war for "freedom" or "democracy" and blaming France Germany etc for not kissing American ass, where were you or what did you say in protest when at least two American administrations SUPPORTED Saddam and turned a blind eye to his atrocities dating back to 1978? Don't you think it's a bit late to get on a high horse now lecturing about human rights, atrocities and mass graves? When the CIA trained Saddam's thugs how to use nerve gas against Iran (which he subsequently used against the Kurds), I don't recall too many of you keyboard-hawk types standing up for human rights and democracy in Iraq. Evil thugs like Somoza, Suharto, Batista, Galtieri, Pinochet, Noriega etc were all created and supported by the US and it's only when they stop obeying orders that the US creates a reason to go to war against them (with Saddam it's weapons of mass destruction or any other administrative reason that Joe Public will swallow, with Noreiga it was drugs even though Bush Snr was head of the CIA and then claimed when he became President that he didn't know about Noreiga's drug running). But don't let little things like the facts get in the way of your ex post-facto moralising.

Wow, I forgot all about Noriega.
He is due to be released soon yes?

"To all those claiming this is a war for "freedom" or "democracy" and blaming France Germany etc for not kissing American ass, where were you or what did you say in protest when at least two American administrations SUPPORTED Saddam and turned a blind eye to his atrocities dating back to 1978?"
--Now that's assuming a bit much, don't you think? Perhaps they were against the US's actions and Saddam back then. Who knows? They could say they were and you'd never know any differently. And perhaps they've changed since then. Or with the advent of the internet, 24 hour news channels and other instant media types, people are much better informed. (Even if they don't live next door to the action...)

"Don't you think it's a bit late to get on a high horse now lecturing about human rights, atrocities and mass graves? When the CIA trained Saddam's thugs how to use nerve gas against Iran (which he subsequently used against the Kurds), I don't recall too many of you keyboard-hawk types standing up for human rights and democracy in Iraq."
--That was over a decade ago. Not many of those "keyboard-hawk types" had personal keyboards then (Unless they were attached to the typewriter), even less had internet and there was no such thing as Queenzone. Heck, when that happened Fred was still alive and kickin'! And besides, it's never too late to be outraged over mass murder, is it?

"Evil thugs like Somoza, Suharto, Batista, Galtieri, Pinochet, Noriega etc were all created and supported by the US and it's only when they stop obeying orders that the US creates a reason to go to war against them (with Saddam it's weapons of mass destruction or any other administrative reason that Joe Public will swallow, with Noreiga it was drugs even though Bush Snr was head of the CIA and then claimed when he became President that he didn't know about Noreiga's drug running). But don't let little things like the facts get in the way of your ex post-facto moralising."
--No, a better scenario would be that the people are trained because they are the lesser fo two evils.
"My enemy's enemy is my friend"

cool, glad they got him

Brandon, you've completely missed the point. If this war was fought for freedom or to stop any more mass graves or to stop rape of Iraqi women or any for any of the other "moral" reasons that are now being trotted out in the absense of any weapons of mass destruction, why did the USA support Saddam when he was doing all those things in the past? The answer is clear: the war was not fought for any of those reasons and for supporters of the war to try NOW to take the high moral ground is laughable. Check our "Diamond Don" Rumsfeld in the link. Won't it be interesting to hear what Saddam has to say at his trial about US support for him for all these years?

http://content.miw.com.sg/LifeStyle/Military/Images/fall_of_saddam.jpg

I don't reckon the Americans WHO SUPPORT THE WAR (just so I don't get attacked by people here) are any better than Saddam and his minions, watever they say.

Both massacred innocent people for their own reasons, therefore they suck.

I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out becuase I couldn't be arsed reading all four pages.

"My enemy's enemy is my friend"
Thank you Brandon. That reason, and that reason only, is why America has had to support some not-very-nice people over the years. American interventions abroad are all about defenidng their interests - security and economic - and nothing else, sod moralism. Somosa, Galtieri, the Shah and Bin laden were backed during the Cold war purely to contain Communism (the number one threat to the U.S. at the time). America is now allied with Musharaf's regime in Pakistan, Russia, China and Saudi Arabia (and was previously allied with Saddam) to contain Islamic Fundamentalism and so-called rogue states(and specifically, because those nations are on the frontline in the battle against Islamic terrorists - again, the number one threat to the U.S.) Morality and ideology does not come into it - the White House is only using the democracy and freedom rhetoric becuase A)LAck of representation (and prosperity)is a root cause of terrorism and B) It's the only way to 'sell' the war to the western public.

I'm not saying such rampant self-interest in the world is wrong, but it is inevitable.

"'My enemy's enemy is my friend'
Thank you Brandon. That reason, and that reason only, is why America has had to support some not-very-nice people over the years."

"Had to" and "not-very-nice"

You are correct that this war is not being fought for any of the "moral" reasons now being trotted out but why then can you not be more accurate about the above quote: change the "had to" to "chose to" and "not nice" to "pyschopathic fascist mass murderers."

What great threat did Salvador Allende pose to the United States, for example? The CIA had him killed not because he threatened to turn Chile into a communist country but because he wanted to make Chile more democratic. Nelson Mandella was imprisoned for 28 years while almost total US support was given to the racist Afrikaner government - what great threat to the US did he pose? The Vietnamese won their national independence and then went to war with both the Chinese and the Khmer Rouge. Unless I've missed something, Vietnam has never posed any sort of military or economic threat to the US. Since the beginning of the Cold War continuing US admins deliberately over-estimated the threat of the Soviet Union in order to justify their support for fascism around the world. They never have been interested in democracy for democracy's sake alone - as Jean Kirkaptrick once infamously told the UN, the difference between fascists and communists is that the USA can do business with fascists.

The US gov't is run by people, therfore it can never be perfect. I don't see however, what your last comments on mandella etc have anything to do with the current situation.

A lot of varied oppinions, and a lot of bullshit, but a good talking point, can't wait until Bin Laden is caught.