Sadaam Captured Alive

[mickydaniels]

Originally Posted by Bond

Democracy + Iraq's Resources = Lots of Money

And that's what it's all about.

[Dylflon]

You know what I think is a bit weird? America sent troops into Iraq because they thought they "might have weapons" but North Korea announced that they had nukes and America isn't fighting any war there. The people of North Korea are suffering and being oppressed too.

*No insult to Americans intended in paragraph below*

If your government is so noble, why aren't they helping North Korea? Why was Iraq so important when there was only a possibility of weapons of mass destruction? Now I don't know for sure if the war in Iraq was about oil but this makes it seem that way. If North Korea had oil would there be a war there?

The war against North Korea I'm sure would be a U.N. sanctioned war. That means it wouldn't just be America in there. Everyone would get involved. Especcialy Canada.

[thatmariolover]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

If your government is so noble, why aren't they helping North Korea? Why was Iraq so important when there was only a possibility of weapons of mass destruction? Now I don't know for sure if the war in Iraq was about oil but this makes it seem that way. If North Korea had oil would there be a war there?

While I can see where you're coming from, I think it's probably a bit different when you know somebody's already got nukes pointed at your balls. I'm not the happy go lucky blind patriot fanboy that thinks his government is so great and noble. So I don't really think there's any reason to argue with you.

I guess, for me, I think that the real issue is an immature family vengance issue. Bush's daddy couldn't get Saddam, so his son's going to do it for him. Just because he's got the power. Which is also why Bin Laden has (seemingly) been put on the back burner. I have a feeling that'll earn some flames as well. But I suppose that's unavoidable.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

While I can see where you're coming from, I think it's probably a bit different when you know somebody's already got nukes pointed at your balls. I'm not the happy go lucky blind patriot fanboy that thinks his government is so great and noble. So I don't really think there's any reason to argue with you.

I guess, for me, I think that the real issue is an immature family vengance issue. Bush's daddy couldn't get Saddam, so his son's going to do it for him. Just because he's got the power. Which is also why Bin Laden has (seemingly) been put on the back burner. I have a feeling that'll earn some flames as well. But I suppose that's unavoidable.

Well when you post ideas that are that stupid, you will get flamed. These theories of "blood for oil", "a war for daddy", etc. are just that: STUPID. S-T-U and a P-I-D. And thats MY opinion. Anbd for the record, I'm not flaming you. I'm calling two of your ideas idiotic, not yourself. There's a difference. You are obviously not a stupid person.

You are free to have your own opinion, but if you want it to be respected try putting a little more thought and research into it before getting diarhea of the mouth. There are plenty of reasons and theories behind the war that are valid and not Nationalistic in the least, but they require research and not just saying the first thing that comes off the top of your head or worse just repeating what some other ignorant schmuck was raving about.

As for Korea, I actually agree with you. The last time I heard they estimated that over 5 million would die in a war with North Korea. Thats a bit more that the relatively few casualties that occurred in the Gulf Wars.

[thatmariolover]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

Well when you post ideas that are that stupid, you will get flamed. These theories of "blood for oil", "a war for daddy", etc. are just that: STUPID. S-T-U and a P-I-D. And thats MY opinion. Anbd for the record, I'm not flaming you. I'm calling two of your ideas idiotic, not yourself. There's a difference. You are obviously not a stupid person.

If they're so stupid, why don't you offer some better ones instead of flaming other peoples? It just seems like if mine are so bad you must have some damn good ones that you're comparing them to.

[Rndm_Perfection]

The issue at hand is simple. Saddam, a tyrant and ruler for a multitude of decades, has finally been apprehended. The death tole he has created is far greater than the loss of International troops in Iraq. He's an evil man, and served as a menace to humanity.

Iraq is, whether you like it or not, going to be Westernized and turned into an effective trading nation that can help the global modern situation, rather than injure it. The time for change is now.


As for trials for Saddam... I agree whole-heartedly with Strangler that it is a shame to see Saddam living. I'm not sure how the Iraqi populace would react to the "fair trial" of their dictator as opposed to just his simple death (When it comes to mass psychology, I draw a blank). However, I do feel I know the poor resultants of a trial... he will once again get his voice to his people. So long as he lives, a certain morale will stay high for those opposing American Iraqi occupation. On the other hand, however... now that he's in captivity, killing him may possibly turn him into some twisted Tyrannical Martyr.

I can only fear the worst of the situation, but I most definately hope for the best. Yesterday was a wonderful day. There's nothing else to it.

[Dylflon]

I agree Rndm. I was just abut to post the martyr thing. That wouldn't be good. He'd only survive about 10 years in prison. I think he should just rot in a jail cell for the rest of his life.


Strangler, if you want people to look at your side of the argument you should stop being so rude. You can't call someone else's idea stupid because you don't agree with it. I think some of the things you have said are stupid but you don't see me calling you or your ideas stupid. It's not fair to force your ideas on everyone and call other people's ideas stupid. That makes you seem very ignorant. Whether you are or not, i don't know. But I do know that you can't just thrust your ideas out there and act like they were written in the Bible or something. Putting people down isn't the proper way to get your point across.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

If they're so stupid, why don't you offer some better ones instead of flaming other peoples? It just seems like if mine are so bad you must have some damn good ones that you're comparing them to.

Mario, I have posted reason after reason after reason why I think this war happened in past threads. I'm not going to go re-research what you should have looked up yourself a long time ago before forming your simplistic theories, but I'll name a few off the top of my head:

1) 1.5 million Iraqi's dead by Saddam's hand.
2) 17 UN resolutions over 12 years condemning Iraq, while they did nothing to comply and the UN waffled as members of the Security Commission standed against conflict because they were owed BILLIONS by Saddam's regime.
3) 1,000 tons of chemical and biological weapons found in 1998 that are not accounted for.
4) Newly found proof that Saddam was tied to terrorism and trained those that were involved in 9/11 attack and made plans to ship weapons to Syria (see Daily Telegraph article that *shock* recieved little to no press from the US media)

But those are just my theories on why the war started and have nothing to do with intrenational law or God forbid, the FACTS.

Dyflon, I'm sorry if I come off rude, but I am sick and tired of people spouting off about things they know nothing about when the result of those opinions could cost thousands or even millions of lives if terrorists and despots like Saddam are allowed to do whatever they please. Ignorance is just annoying by itself, but when that ignorance can do so much damage it becomes sinful and abhorrent.

But thats just my opinion. I could be wrong.

[thatmariolover]

The major theme of argument I’m going to use here is, “why now”.

1) 1.5 million Iraqi’s dead? Where did you get this number? I’m not discrediting you, but the highest I could find from an official government source (or any) was here: http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/crimes/
It clearly states 340,000; which is definitely a huge number. But that was from 1980-1988. Not anytime recently. There’s no arguing that this guy needed to be nailed, but why all of the sudden?

2) That’s absolutely true. But how has that changed anything recently? It hasn’t.

3) There’s a lot more than 1,000 tons missing (http://armedservices.house.gov/press.../IraqiWMDs.pdf). But again, it’s been a while. I understand that we needed to go after this guy, but what was the urgency? Osama Bin Laden attacked us much more recently, and he suddenly took a back-seat to Saddam.

4) I’ve actually already reviewed that article, and it’s a great find. But we didn’t find this memo 9 months ago. We found it now. If we had found it 9 months ago, this would be a damn valid reason for having dropped (or shifted) the matter at hand (Bin Laden). But we didn’t, and it’s not.

Who are you to judge what I know? You know what I hate? People who think they know what’s best for everybody else; people who shove their beliefs down other people’s throats. Ignorance is a sin, yes. It is up to us to educate ourselves, but beyond that there’s so much more. Just because you know what is going on doesn’t make your plan of action right. There are so many different ways to deal with every situation. That’s why we have a democracy. Not a dictatorship. Saddam was a dictator; what are you?

Look, it's obvious that we aren't going to agree on this topic. So let's just agree to disagree. Enough with the debating.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

You know what I think is a bit weird? America sent troops into Iraq because they thought they "might have weapons" but North Korea announced that they had nukes and America isn't fighting any war there. The people of North Korea are suffering and being oppressed too.

Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction. Saddam used them against his own people. It's not a question of whether or not Saddam had them. It's a question of where they are. I would agree with you in that we should also go after North Korea, but that would result in huge casualties that the public would not support. And you can only go after so many tyrants at a time. You can help some people sometimes, but you can't help all the people all the time (altered Bob Marley quote)