Recreation Saddam Hussein is CAUGHT! (a discussion)

Where did he say this? He said in his speeches that he would turn Saddam over to the Iraqis once a system is set up to put him on trial (provided they can find a group of un-biased people). However, i'm almost certain that the Iraqis would put him to death. If thats what you meant 'That Guy', then thats my bad :sweat: .

I cant prove either way and i'll admit that he did look pretty haggard compared to the powerful overlord of past times. This is an accusation made against the ARMY by Hussain's sister (maybe she really didn't like her husband). I'm throwing this in the bin with the conspiracy theories along with "FDR and Bush knew about the attacks [Pearl Harbor and 9-11]" and that thing the Dems. have been saying "We knew where Hussain was all the time but brought him out now for political reasons." Of course, if it's proven to be fact. Well then, I was wrong.

Lastly, I have to put this in here. Spoken by David letterman on the tonight show." What about that Hussain character? I mean, Michael Jackson put up more of a fight than he did."

 

For one, I highly, highly, highly doubt that the man they caught is a lookalike. There may be those who resemble him, but unless he has an identical twin, that's gotta be him!!

I'm sorry... dictator... but he still is very well the head of many terrorists!

Lastly, news said he was bewildered whe they found him- not drugged. I guessed if you were in a hole for a couple (???'s) you'd be too! he also supposedly had a gun, but didn't fire it, and troops said he was cooperative... odd.

 

He was the head of exactly.... /me counts.... oh zero terrorist organisations.
He did contribute to Al'Qidea (sp?) at one stage, but then again so did the CIA, sending operatives to train them in how to make explosives, and sending weapons ect ect so by that logic Bush is the head of many terrorist organisations (who also happens to be VERY close with the Saudi Royal family, another oppressive regime). And his lookalikes have had plasitc surgury to look EXACTLY like him, so the guy looking excatly like him proves nothing.

Also i very much doubt the trial will be inpartial, and he will most likely be put to death. If its the real guy, he deserves to be put to death in my opinion but in a humane way, just because he had people tortured and killed, does not give people the right to do the same.

 

I think this is really awsome.

But now I hope they can catch Bin Laden.

 

Terrorist/Terrorism/Terroristic:
1. The use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. The state of fear and submission so produced.
3. Government or resistance to government by means of terror.
[Random House Inc. Webster's College Dictonary. Canada: Toronto, 1991]

Now, if I say so myself. That definition includes Saddam Hussain and his government; the Bush administration wouldn't fall under that catagory. I don't doubt that the CIA arms other countries, but I do not percieve that as making Bush the head of a terrorist organisation. When the CIA cooperated with Al Quida, that was during the Soviet Union's invasion of Afgahnistan (sp). At that time, if you were against communism/socialism of any kind, then the US will support you. That was the doctrine during the Cold War and it incidentally put a few dictators into place (South Vietnam and Iraq). I don't think that Al-Quida held anti-west feelings until Bin Laden came to power (if i'm wrong, point it out please).

 

"Terrorist/Terrorism/Terroristic:
1. The use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. The state of fear and submission so produced.
3. Government or resistance to government by means of terror."

"the Bush administration wouldn't fall under that catagory"

you have got to be kidding me. perhaps bush and his cronies are "shock-and-awe'ists"
like terrorists, but they just can't get the job done

 

The Bush administration WOULD fall under this, as mord pointed out "Shock and Awe" is a completely fear based tactic, so if you want to say Saddam is a terrorist, then I can just as easily call Bush a terrorist. The CIA didn’t arm a county, they trained terrorists to make explosives and use them, methods of assassination, subversion, deception. The US government arms country’s when it suits them (including Iraq when they where gassing the Iranians as far as I remember, not positive it was the Iranians, id have to go check it up). In South Vietnam, people where murdered during a vote to decided to join with North Vietnam (the same tactic was also used in North Vietnam I am sad to say). Bin Laden ALWAYS ran Al-Quida, he is the leader, and infact there main goal is to free Saudi from American influences, not to destroy the west.

In my opinion Bush is worse then Saddam, Saddam was mainly killing people in his own country, Bush has killed all over the world, and what exactly did the people of Afghanistan do wrong may I ask? Harbour terrorists? So England should invade Ireland because of the IRA (possibly the most organized and dangerous terrorist groups in the world)? Iraq was armed by the US; Saddam was put into power by the US. When it suited them, the US further armed Saddam with chemical weapons to kill Iranians. The same can be said for many countries all over the world.

Don’t give me this "We're liberating other countries" crap ether (not that you have yet, but im sure that its going to come up soon enough). It’s not your right to do this, it’s the right of the people to rise up and change a county thru armed force or political force. It may take longer, more lives may be lost but the government that is set up will be the peoples choice, what ever that may be, as Americans you should all understand this, believing in democracy and freedom ect. The government set up in Iraq will not be the one that the people choose, because the Americans will be setting it up.

Its way to early to be typing all this, and its all proably more relivent in the Debates forum any way.

 

I guess that is good for people he wont terrorize and all
chow change that sig ffs

 

****, we can't torture him!

Oh well. I found this out at 7:00 in the moring the day after he was caught. My mom came and woke me up. Oi.

 

No you cant. And for a very good reason to. Two wrongs dont make a right and all that. He'll be dancing the hemp fandango soon enough anyway, regardless if its him or not, will be a shame if it isnt him tbh, as the real guy will get away.

NeoB your post doesnt make much sence, to me anyway :S

 

I Watched the interview with Bush were he states Many times that Sudam should (using his gay terms) face the ULTIMATE PUNISHMENT OF DEATH..

I wish someone would kick that man in the face for being such a tool.

Anyway I figure it is Sadam.
1) his daughter is trying to get him a just trial through the UN not by the US or Iraqi's
2) After 6 months of hiding I’m sure he spent LOTS of money trying to shut ppl up to keep his *** alive.
3) the 2 low life’s of the regime probably turned him in.
4) any of those guys who are suppose to look like sadam probably changed that in a hurry when Iraq fell.

As to whether he should die or not. On one Side you have all those who will want him set free.. then if he is Killed all those who wanted him set free may declare vengeance on the US making matters worse.. So it really a Bad situation..

If any of this makes sense.. Great.. if not.. oh well

KaMe

 

i heard it was his own family that turned him in. but it would make sense if it was his fellow low life's.
i wouldn't be surprised if they took all the regime's money and left him for dead. he probably had to then turn to his family to protect him, god knows no other country would be stupid enough to take him in.

 

SADDAM HAS BEEN CAUGHT, but you already knew.... unless you live in a hole, in which case, you're the person we caught.
So saddam is caught; what does it mean?

Short answer:
Democrats are SCREWED

Long answer:
The Democrats are...COMpletly screwed.

EDIT
Peopl, do we remeber that right after 9/11, we knew it was bin Laden. Then, when it looked like we weren't catching him anytime soon, "Saddam Hussein is stockpiling w.o.m.d. and may have conspirited with Al Queda". Then, when we knew there were no w.o.m.d. "We wish to liberate the Iraqi people". Let's face the facts. Bush has wanted this war since before he was elected, and if you couldn't figure that out, your oblivious. He wanted to do what his father couldn't, finish what his father didn't, and carry on the family legacy.
/EDIT

 

I didn't see the interview. I stand corrected.

As for the Democrates, I do believe they are screwed. The economy is growing stronger and the majority of people are siding with Bush (if I recall correctly, a poll put Bush at a 68% approval). Besides, I can't believe what Dean said earlier this week. Something to the effects of: The world is no better off since Hussain was captured. Even other Democratic running mates are attacking him on that one.

Between hearing all this bickering from the left and all this Bush is this and that and so on, i'm sick of hearing it. (You folks can say whatever the **** you want about it) I respect Bush. He put himself, his career and this country on the line to do what he believes is right. Not all of it is right or even comes close to being acceptable, but thats life (and life is not fair all the time). If you hate his policies, thats fine (as long as you have a reason and were not just told to hate him). If his policies fail and all hell breaks loose (compared to now, I wouldn't care to imagine what that looks like), then he was a fool, moron, and whatever else and he will get a boot out of office because of it. Now people, spare me your indignation. But if you must take what I believe in and humiliate me because of it, then go ahead and fire when ready and call me anything except "late for dinner". Attacks will strenghen my resolve and it will make my ideology all the more a precious commodity to me.

I'm out. This was about Hussains capture, not some sort of political debate (it is interesting how it evolved tho). I'm stapling my fingers on this one.

 

I could go on about this for weeks, but im not going to, when i posted the first reply, i hadnt intended to turn this into a politcal debate (not that its actuly been much of a debate ). If anyone wants to start a thread about it in debates, go a head, im sure as hell not going to as if i do that, then ill have to check the bloody thing all the time, and tbh i way to lazy to do that. My fingers are also, in the words of Phalanx here, stapled.

 

[act] Im in shock, the media lied to us again [/act]
I wonder how they'll explain this one...
"Someone must have painted the dates yellow"

referring to the pic in the attachment

 

Oh yeah, heaven forbid something like this happen when there's still, what, a year until the elections? It had to happen SOMETIME.



He was a white patch, which is pretty normal. Heck, my beard is a somewhat different, more coppery colour than my natural hair colour, does that mean I really have a photoshopped version of me attending class?

Also, what was on the palm tree? I ask because I didn't really see any palm tree.

Oh -please-, that was a jewish holiday, of COURSE they weren't at work. Saying it was jews, well, it'd be like someone bombing a bank on Christmas and concluding it MUST be a massive plot originated in the Vatican. And aside from Bin Laden claiming responsibility for the attacks, not to mention all his ranting about jihad on the infidel pigs of the west, AND his history of terrorist bombings against the US...

 

TBH I can barely tell what those are. How long do they stay yellow?

Either to frame them, or coincidence.