http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/14/sprj.irq.main/index.html

He's been captured. *cheers*

I'm so mixed up on this issue. I'm sort of glad he's captured, but I'm also mad that this is going to be another push towards popularity for Bush.

I'm not overly fond of either man, let's just say that for now.

heh same as sebluver....now everyones going to be like 'See...the war WAS right so ner ner, Bush is a hero' but whatever...at the end of the day this is the only good thing to come out of this whole situation, i'm glad they finally got him...even if now i'm going to have to put up with months of 'GOD BLESS AMERICA WE OWN, BUSH OWNZ JOO!!!11' :P

He looks like quite the person now :P But it is a good thing he's caught, and I also agree with what starlet and seb said above.

ditto.
I just hope they let the Iraqi's handle the trial, I think that would be much better for the situation in the area.

I'm like sebluver & starlet...the ends does not justify the means.

I agree with what was said above...

y'know how every time Saddam has released video tapes or whatever, the US hasn't really been sure if it's really him or lookalikes? and they were so sure there were others that posed as him at certain events and stuff? well what if it isn't really Saddam that they captured? do they know for sure it's him? from the story (which I just browsed, didn't read fully :P) it sounds like he was captured fairly easily- it said no shots were fired, and he answered peoples' questions- wouldn't you think Saddam would have put up a little bit more of a fight?

They said DNA proves it...and they are comparing that to ... ?

oh, they must have gotten a DNA sample and compared it within the last couple hours to one of the many samples they must have gotten all those other times they had him in their custody.

sorry, I shouldn't be so sarcastic :P

his sons were killed, right? if they had their DNA, it is plausible that they used DNA to prove it.

I thought about that too Marianne, i just wished they had elaborated more and i hope they have an independant lab do it.

Like dude said, seems like he is too cooperative although I read on a news article that they said he was being unrepentant.


Sanchez said the former leader was uninjured, "talkative and cooperative," after his capture in the raid, dubbed Operation Red Dawn.

However, members of the Iraqi Governing Council said Sunday when they went to see Saddam Hussein they found him "tired and haggard, unrepentant, even defiant."

Four members of the council, who were taken to see Saddam after his capture by U.S. troops, said Saddam insisted to them he was "a just but firm ruler."

Asked about thousands killed and dumped in mass graves, Saddam dismissed his victims saying "they were thieves," said one council member.

"He was not apologetic. He was sarcastic and making a mockery of Iraqi people," said one member of the council.

About 600 4th Infantry Division soldiers and Special Operations forces from Task Force 121 conducted the raid in Adwar, near a compound of ramshackle buildings, about 9 miles outside Saddam's hometown of Tikrit, on Saturday night.

Odierno said that was "very disoriented," and did not resist U.S. forces.


from cnn.com

I've been hearing about Saddam all day, and I'm very glad that we've finally caught him :) He got so pathetic that he was hiding in a spider hole when they found him. Pffft, served him right.

Now if we could catch Osama...

I find him being cooperative hard to swallow too...he hates America...hes an evil man...you'd think if any US people came anywhere near him he'd just point a gun at himself, i'm sure he'd rather be dead than captured by America!

Probably too cowardly to kill himself

i think that pres. Bush is a GREAT president!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! ~allie :)

yeah..um, i probably shouldn't get *too* involved with this thread..I am pretty "apathetic" or have..mixed feelings about his 'capture'. It really is a push towards Bush's popularity, in so many ways. It's pretty sad.

i don't HATE Bush, I just think Gore could've done a better job. have I said that before?

maybe...I don't know if Gore would have done a better job; most likely however...

Edit: my 1000th post...go figure; its on politics!

Originally posted by PinkSparkler321
i think that pres. Bush is a GREAT president!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! ~allie :)
Me too
I glad that Saddam got caught.
Did you know that saddam means king but if you change the way you say it to Saydam it means a donkey's rear.

i think that pres. Bush is a GREAT president!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

I'm sorry if I'm frank, but I'd like to hear your opinion on this topic, not on the topic of whether or not Bush is an excellent president.

The people I feel most sorry for are his daughters. They had an interview, and you could just TELL everyone wanted them to say, "We hate our father, he's an evil man!" Or something like that.

I also feel so sorry for the women in Iraq. Ever since Bush decided he had to terrorize Iraq, the threat of Iraqi women being murdered/raped has gone up and up. These women can't go to their jobs, can't go to school, can't really leave their houses at all.

Some freedom.

Originally posted by sebluver
The people I feel most sorry for are his daughters. They had an interview, and you could just TELL everyone wanted them to say, "We hate our father, he's an evil man!" Or something like that.

I also feel so sorry for the women in Iraq. Ever since Bush decided he had to terrorize Iraq, the threat of Iraqi women being murdered/raped has gone up and up. These women can't go to their jobs, can't go to school, can't really leave their houses at all.

Some freedom.

Wow, that's really sad. I hate how Bush goes and raids Iraq, but he just focuses on one problem. I mean, as long as he's there, why doesn't he do something for the women? Obviously it can't be hard to ignore if it's as bad as seb said.

Originally posted by sebluver
I'm so mixed up on this issue. I'm sort of glad he's captured, but I'm also mad that this is going to be another push towards popularity for Bush.

I'm not overly fond of either man, let's just say that for now.


Same here! I dislike both of them. The recent problem I've been having is that when I say I dislike Bush, people assume I support Saddam =( I just discovered this today, lol! Since Saddam has been caught, people are using that against those of us who don't agree with Bush. The thing is, I've disagreed with Bush before all of this.

ugh i know, i must have heard 'Ha ha sod you Bush haters' and 'ha i bet you feel stupid for not supporting Bush now' and similar about 50 times already today. God forbid anyone should dislike/disagree with both of them...besides that....why should Bush get all the 'glory' apart from his stupidly expensive trip over there at thanksgiving, has he even been to Iraq? what has he actually done...other than send people out there to either murder or be murdered in the first place?

the threat of Iraqi women being murdered/raped has gone up and up. These women can't go to their jobs, can't go to school, can't really leave their houses at all.

Some freedom.

I don't think it threatens ONLY the women, it threatens everyone! I feel bad, for people who aren't supportign the war and still have to go through it.. And yeah, obviously, there isn't much freedom left in america. i.e. no freedom of speech (although it's in the first amendment) oh well, what can you do right?

Originally posted by starlet
ugh i know, i must have heard 'Ha ha sod you Bush haters' and 'ha i bet you feel stupid for not supporting Bush now' and similar about 50 times already today. God forbid anyone should dislike/disagree with both of them...besides that....why should Bush get all the 'glory' apart from his stupidly expensive trip over there at thanksgiving, has he even been to Iraq? what has he actually done...other than send people out there to either murder or be murdered in the first place?


Saddam is caught, but I still don't see how that makes all of this right. I laugh when people say, "He showed you," because he hasn't. What he needed to show me (before the war) was the weapons.

When I found out he went to Iraq to eat, I shook my head. Instead of going over there to eat, and then returning home to his family (something those soldiers couldn't do); he should have stayed and helped HIS cause. I just hope Saddam's capture will help the soldiers get home faster than I expected (my cousin wasn't due back until AT LEAST February of next year), but I doubt.

Originally posted by Ayosu_Ling
I don't think it threatens ONLY the women, it threatens everyone! I feel bad, for people who aren't supportign the war and still have to go through it.. And yeah, obviously, there isn't much freedom left in america. i.e. no freedom of speech (although it's in the first amendment) oh well, what can you do right?

Sure it threatens everyone, but its probably the worst with the women.

Um... what the heck do you mean by "there isn't much freedom left in america. i.e. no freedom of speech (although it's in the first amendment)"? Our freedom of speech was never taken away from us... America is a free country, and I now isn't really a time to complain about our freedom, when Iraq and thousands of other places have no freedom whatsoever.

I dont really see America as an overly free country...sure its better than Iraq, but its no better than any other civilised country, just we dont feel the need to use the experssion 'freedom of speech' at every available oppertunity, the publics opinion obviously doesnt matter, since Bush wasnt even voted in by the majority of the public, since the fact Americans didnt want to go to war meant nothing to Bush, the news in America is the single most bias ive ever come across...the saddest thing about that of course being most americans dont even realise just how manipulated by the press they are....and i just found out today (may be wrong) that Micheal Moores bowling for columbine is banned from American TV because its seen as anti american! Theres about another 100 things too that make me think 'you call that freedom?'
Out of all the civilised countrys in the world America would be the last place id ever want to live.

I know what you mean with the TV thing. Some things are really rediculous nowadays.

What do you mean by manipulated by the press?

what the heck do you mean by "there isn't much freedom left in america. i.e. no freedom of speech (although it's in the first amendment)"? Our freedom of speech was never taken away from us... America is a free country, and I now isn't really a time to complain about our freedom, when Iraq and thousands of other places have no freedom whatsoever.
What i mean is the fact that people can get prosecuted for voicing their opinions. Maybe in small print in the 1st ammendment they should say 'speech: punishable by law'.
If it wasn't in the first amendment, I probably wouldn't be complaining about it. The situation is pretty irony, itself.

Originally posted by Ayosu_Ling
What i mean is the fact that people can get prosecuted for voicing their opinions. Maybe in small print in the 1st ammendment they should say 'speech: punishable by law'.
If it wasn't in the first amendment, I probably wouldn't be complaining about it. The situation is pretty irony, itself.

Well of course its punishable by law.. "freedom of speech" isn't really as general as people think. People won't get arrested nowadays for saying something bad about Bush, wheras people in places like Iraq would be persecuted for saying something bad about their leader.

yeah, i know. that is the problem.

Originally posted by SizzZzLinHair
Well of course its punishable by law.. "freedom of speech" isn't really as general as people think. People won't get arrested nowadays for saying something bad about Bush, wheras people in places like Iraq would be persecuted for saying something bad about their leader.


Here, people won't be persecuted by the government, just other Americans.

Originally posted by Ayosu_Ling
yeah, i know. that is the problem.

It's one of the many problems of poor countries. And places like America don't help, we just sit back and watch. That makes me wonder about Bush.

[QUOTE]Origionally posted by sisqoluv
Here, people won't be persecuted by the government, just other Americans.[QUOTE]

Not always. I mean, here, right now, people are giving their opinions about Bush, and other poeple aren't critisizing, just giving their opinions back. I hardly call that being persecuted.

Originally posted by starlet
I dont really see America as an overly free country...sure its better than Iraq, but its no better than any other civilised country, just we dont feel the need to use the experssion 'freedom of speech' at every available oppertunity, the publics opinion obviously doesnt matter, since Bush wasnt even voted in by the majority of the public, since the fact Americans didnt want to go to war meant nothing to Bush, the news in America is the single most bias ive ever come across...the saddest thing about that of course being most americans dont even realise just how manipulated by the press they are....and i just found out today (may be wrong) that Micheal Moores bowling for columbine is banned from American TV because its seen as anti american! Theres about another 100 things too that make me think 'you call that freedom?'
Out of all the civilised countrys in the world America would be the last place id ever want to live.

True. We're gradually loosing our freedoms as it is. They want to tap our phones, read our email, etc just in case we're terrorists. If this continues, we'll have as much freedom as the Iraqis did. As for the news thing, I try not to believe everything they say. I don't remember the news ever being unbias (if anyone can find an example, please let me know).

Originally posted by SizzZzLinHair
What do you mean by manipulated by the press?

while I wasn't the one to say that originally, I think I know what she meant, and I agree. this is my take at least :P

the media in the US are in a way controlled by the government- the government allowed the media to use certain images and things and not others. in that sense, it's possible for the government to control how people view different things. with Iraq, the photos of Saddam's sons dead were all over the media, but you never saw pictures of dead soldiers. that way, the government helped keep whatever support for the war they had up. it's pretty similar for any other situation- the media tends to portray the US in a positive light, and put forth ideals that are reinforced by the government. (think Fox News :P)

Originally posted by SizzZzLinHair
Not always. I mean, here, right now, people are giving their opinions about Bush, and other poeple aren't critisizing, just giving their opinions back. I hardly call that being persecuted. [/B]


I'm speaking outside of LEIA. This goes for forums not as tightly moderated and the real world offline. I was viewing other forums today, and it's not as accepting as it is here. You should have seen all of the "If you don't like Bush, get out of you country!" or "You're un-American if you don't agree with Bush, [put hateful name here]!" I read today.

Originally posted by sisqoluv
I'm speaking outside of LEIA. This goes for forums not as tightly moderated and the real world offline. I was viewing other forums today, and it's not as accepting as it is here. You should have seen all of the "If you don't like Bush, get out of you country!" or "You're un-American if you don't agree with Bush, [put hateful name here]!" I read today.

That's true. And I know that LEIA isn't the real world. But obviously we're more mature :P

No matter what ammendment they make, however, they'll never stop Americans critisizing other Americans for their speech. But they're both opinions- the first guy is saying that he doesn't like Bush, and the second guy is saying that he does like Bush (in a childish manner).

I'm speaking outside of LEIA. This goes for forums not as tightly moderated and the real world offline. I was viewing other forums today, and it's not as accepting as it is here. You should have seen all of the "If you don't like Bush, get out of you country!" or "You're un-American if you don't agree with Bush, [put hateful name here]!" I read today.


That is so true. It's been that way since the beginning of the war. What really really bugs me is that they keep saying not to hate the iraqi people but the government because it's not the iraqi people's fault they have a crappy government but as a citizen of an country that openly opposed the war, i had a lot of full blown hatred directed towards me. How do people even know whether or not I agree with my government or not? Just because I was from there, they hated me and I mean hate. My governement didn't ask me if I agreed or not just like the US government didn't ask the american people either.

Anyways, that's my soap box.

Woods- yay! i'm so glad to know that someone on here agrees that pres. Bush is a great pres.!!! i think that if Gore would have won, we would be in a lot of chaos right now. As for my opinion on the capture of Sadaam, I think that it's great that we caught him- I mean, who wouldn't be happy about it? ;) ~alexis

Originally posted by PinkSparkler321
i think that if Gore would have won, we would be in a lot of chaos right now.

what are you basing that statement on? I know it's not his performance as president.

and who wouldn't be happy about the capture of Saddam? everyone that's afraid that it's just enough boost in popularity for Bush for him to be re-elected. the war shouldn't have been started. if it hadn't, Saddam wouldn't have been captured. then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about dealing with Bush for another term (what was that about the deficit? [just one example])

Originally posted by PinkSparkler321
Woods- yay! i'm so glad to know that someone on here agrees that pres. Bush is a great pres.!!! i think that if Gore would have won, we would be in a lot of chaos right now. As for my opinion on the capture of Sadaam, I think that it's great that we caught him- I mean, who wouldn't be happy about it? ;) ~alexis

oh no, not another politics thread...!
I think pretty much everyone is happy Saddam is captured. As for Bush's political qualities... there already was a thread about that. Nobody will convince anybody anyway.

The statement (who said it again?) about Saddam's dead sons on TV, but noooo dead American soldiers on TV is sooo true. That really bugs me. It's cencorship in a supposedly free country, I think it stinks.

i like bush now too he's a great president i dun really like politics and all that its confusing ....but anyways at 1st i didn't like bush but hes proved 2 me hes ok i dont really listen to all that about the war it kinda scares me cuz whut if they come to america fighting it out i mean we keep hearing its over and its really not and its like gosh is it or not ??????? im really happy sudam got caught i hope all the soldiers from the war come back safe becuz we all need love just like someones sign. on here i seen i like that cuz we dont have alot of it and we do need it

Originally posted by Dude128
while I wasn't the one to say that originally, I think I know what she meant, and I agree. this is my take at least :P

the media in the US are in a way controlled by the government- the government allowed the media to use certain images and things and not others. in that sense, it's possible for the government to control how people view different things. with Iraq, the photos of Saddam's sons dead were all over the media, but you never saw pictures of dead soldiers. that way, the government helped keep whatever support for the war they had up. it's pretty similar for any other situation- the media tends to portray the US in a positive light, and put forth ideals that are reinforced by the government. (think Fox News :P)

Yeah, that's true. The news bugs me sometimes- they seem to throw in their own opinions and publisize all the bad guys, like you said. Our soldiers deserve some recognition.

Originally posted by Marianne
The statement (who said it again?) about Saddam's dead sons on TV, but noooo dead American soldiers on TV is sooo true. That really bugs me. It's cencorship in a supposedly free country, I think it stinks.

i agree with you about the censorship bit. Television has greatLy influenced the minds of the masses and the government has been using this to every bit of their advantage. At the beginning of the Iraqi war, the media was cLuttered with bombings in Iraq and all sorts of victories over cities, yet the death toLL of the lives lost in casualty were in the small print in the sidelines.

MOST Americans don't even follow the news, yet they vote which puts the nation at a great deficit for votes are being cast by people who don't know half of what's going on politically. And all these Americans who are oblivious to the political world only see what's emphisised in the news and what is put in the headlines of newspapers. I think this is what shapes most of their opinions, tid bits of headlines as opposed to having followed the issue, thus having enough background info. to base an opinion with.

hehe...came out long so i think i.LL end with this quote that i liked:
"The Worst Thing About Censorship Is [Scribbled Out]."

Originally posted by Rosey
That is so true. It's been that way since the beginning of the war. What really really bugs me is that they keep saying not to hate the iraqi people but the government because it's not the iraqi people's fault they have a crappy government but as a citizen of an country that openly opposed the war, i had a lot of full blown hatred directed towards me. How do people even know whether or not I agree with my government or not? Just because I was from there, they hated me and I mean hate. My governement didn't ask me if I agreed or not just like the US government didn't ask the american people either.

Anyways, that's my soap box.


Yes. After the way started, people at other forums called me names since I'm an American. They weren't childish names, but still, lol. Things like "stuck-up", "war/blood hungry", "bossy", etc over the war. I hate the way people judge us based on our government and what they see on TV. Many people outside of the US thought we were all rich snobs. Now they added "bossy" (moving into another country and telling them how to do things) and "war/blood hungry" to the list. Look at Iraq now. You saw people cheering, but that doesn't mean they were cheering FOR the US. Many of them wanted us out of there after Saddam fled, so they MAY be cheering because they think we'll leave faster.

Originally posted by SizzZzLinHair
I've been hearing about Saddam all day, and I'm very glad that we've finally caught him :) He got so pathetic that he was hiding in a spider hole when they found him. Pffft, served him right.

Now if we could catch Osama... Yes...now if we could only catch Osama...then I'd feel very safe indeed.

As for Saddam...my brother woke me up at 6:30a.m. on the telephone (we were at a hotel and he had my room number) just to tell me they caught Saddam....I was about ready to catch my brother and get some sense into him. Don't wake me up from my beauty (okay...beauty I'm not, but I can dream) sleep or else!!!! :lol:

Heh...okay random fact. The general that headed that particular raid on that farmhouse went to my school district! Even more randomer, my history teacher was his high school baseball coach.(He was the pitcher) Now how cool is that?

Originally posted by PinkSparkler321
i think that if Gore would have won, we would be in a lot of chaos right now.

What's funny is (to me, at least, lol) that when Bush was elected, I was standing at the bus stop before school telling my friends how I didn't want him to win. One of my friends said, "Well, Ambrosia, Gore would want to go to war with everyone." That's not her exact words (if I knew it would have been important, I would have documented it and showed her earlier this year), but she told me something about how Bush is less likely to go to war with people. We weren't planning a war or anything, but her brother-in-law is in the service, so I'm assuming that's why she was thinking that. I mean, before 9/11, as you read about past wars in History class; did you really think that that could happen tomorrow? I could just throw that statement she made back in her face, but I'm a nice friend =) And my cousin's over there (her brother-in-law's not), so I know how she would feel.

I know what you mean sisqoluv, it goes both ways. When the war started, we watched the news and the news made it look like everyone in the US was for this war but if you start to talk to people and look at editorials and opinions, there are many many people that were not happy but you never heard that in the news.

The worst part was that when someone voiced an opinion against the war, they would get cut off or someone would comment that they were being pressured to say those things.

It's sad..it really is that in the US, country of freedom that it proclaims itself to be, that the media is SO biased.

I read the news elsewhere to get facts. I was actually surprised when I was reading Le Monde because they presented facts, they didn't let their opinions get in the way. It was always, Bush did this today, Chirac did this, this happened and this was said. End of story. I was pleasently surprised and I think the news needs to realize that we don't want their opinions, we want the facts. We are old enough and smart enough to make our own opinions.

It's interesting how NOTHING on tv all day was about the capture of Heussien (sp-who cares) until 7:30 pm. Yes, I did go to school.

Yeah. I've noticed that. There's virtually nothing on about it. Not that I care. I wonder what they're going to do with him. Probably hand him over to the provisional authorities. If it ever comes down to war crime trials-which it probably will-I think it's pretty obvious what verdict will be. What I'm wondering about is the sentencing...

As if Bush's ego wasn't big enough..Not that I'm trying to contradict everyone else's response, because I'm not, I just
think this is probably going to get to his head, or already has anyway.

[/i]Originally posted by PinkSparkler321 [/i]
i think that if Gore would have won, we would be in a lot of chaos right now.
Most likely..But then what do you call what is happening now? Hmm..Well, I didn't want either to win..I knew that Gore had an issue with womens rights, and I knew that Bush wanted to make guns legal to carry w/out a license of any sort..So, pretty much a draw there. :/

Originally posted by kicker91
i don't HATE Bush, I just think Gore could've done a better job. have I said that before?


don't make me laff. Gore is a just as bad as clinton

Originally posted by Cherchezlafemme
don't make me laff. Gore is a just as bad as clinton

how so?

yeah, they are very much alike- it's so obvious! ~allie

Dan this article took the words right out of my mouth

http://www.ctnow.com/news/politics/hc-jacklinopedsundec14.artdec15,1,2287221.column?coll =hc-utility-news-politics

Originally posted by Cherchezlafemme
http://www.ctnow.com/news/politics/hc-jacklinopedsundec14.artdec15,1,2287221.column?coll =hc-utility-news-politics

I really don't see the connection...

Originally posted by PinkSparkler321
yeah, they are very much alike- it's so obvious!

again, how so? the only obvious connection between Gore and Clinton is that they're both Democrats...

Originally posted by kicker91
It's interesting how NOTHING on tv all day was about the capture of Heussien (sp-who cares) until 7:30 pm. Yes, I did go to school.

I know, not much as been said... Well, one channel's going to show footage of the place he was hiding in... How exciting.

yeah, that ones a gimme, but they both are cheating liars. Think of the big commotion over the voting ballots a couple years ago, and think about all that junk that clinton pulled. ~allie

how does that make Gore a cheating liar? 1) he didn't cheat and 2) he didn't lie... there were problems with the ballots in Florida, and he was entitled to more votes than were originally counted because of those flawed ballots

it's no use trying to explain to you...

why not?

Originally posted by Rosey
It's sad..it really is that in the US, country of freedom that it proclaims itself to be, that the media is SO biased.

I read the news elsewhere to get facts.
I think every place is biased to a certain extend, but some are worse than others. We used to watch CNN, but the censorship and bias is so severe, that we gave up on CNN for good...

Saddam Hussein's oldest daughter told Al-Arabiya television network today the family of the former dictator will hire the best attorneys it can find to fight for her father. In a phone interview, Raghad Hussein, 35, told the Arabic-language channel the family believes Saddam was drugged after he surrendered to U.S. troops. - CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/16/sprj.nirq.saddam/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105879,00.html

------

Do you guys think he was drugged, or do you think he is just terrified of what will happen to him?

Personally, I think he is just tired and terrified, but heaven only knows.

It would explain some stuff if he was drugged, because i really dont believe he gave up so easily and was cooperative!

Has anyone else realised yet that by showing Saddam being prodded and poked on TV is against the geneva convention? Guess no one cares that America has broken the law yet again though....

Originally posted by starlet
Has anyone else realised yet that by showing Saddam being prodded and poked on TV is against the geneva convention? Guess no one cares that America has broken the law yet again though....

I assume they did that to assure the people of Iraq that they actually have him. Not that that gives the "Americans" the right to show him being prodded.

This is the only thing I found on the Must and Must Not's on the Geneva Convention....
http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con.html

Or is there a better site, because I don't know that much about it?

Oh yeah im sure thats why they did it, if they hadnt shown him at all the public would have just been like 'Yeah right, sure you caught him'
But the geneva convention is there for a reason, to make sure POWs and people like Saddam get treated fairly, they could have shown him on TV...just minus the prodding and poking, that was shown purly to 'show off' and say Ha...look what we can do to this evil man, not so scary now huh saddam?

Rememer during the war (when it was in full swing i mean) american troops caught a load of Iraqi soilders then, and they paraded them on tv...all lined up etc, that broke the conventions rules too...as did about 5 other things that happened (that we know about) but no one ever seems to care...thats why i dont like Bush, hes broken more laws and UN sanctions than any other country in the entire world, people might see them as lesser crimes than Saddams, but it doesnt alter that they are crimes that most other leaders would be in prison for, or at the very least forced to resign!

I don't agree with what they did, I was just stating that was probably their reasoning for doing it. I totally agree with what you are saying Starlet. The American Goverment always gets away with things, they should be held accountable for their moronic actions too. And how do we know that America doesn't have WMD (weapons of mass destruction). Why do all the other countries have to be "searched", but how come nobody searches America?

Sorry if that doesn't make sense. I'm so not good at debating things.

Oh but America and the United Kingdom do have WMDs...but because we arent seen as evil/terrorist country's were allowed them, go figure eh?

After I wrote that, I remembered 'we' do have WMD....I just was too lazy to edit. :)

Originally posted by starlet
but because we arent seen as evil/terrorist country's were allowed them, go figure eh?

Crazy for sure.

Newsflash: there are even weapons of mass destruction IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
They have been there for years.
But... nobody minds.
Why?
Because they are in Israel.
Of course, Israel has a speckless reputation, with them respecting their neighbours and all, so they are allowed to have those weapons while their neighbours do not.
... After all, it is AMERICA that lays down the rules, and if America says it's fine to have weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, as long as Israel is the only country that has them, then Israel will be the only country that has them. Any other country will be invaded for the sheer suspicion of having them.
Boy, that really makes sense, right...?

Talking about biased press and cencorship, the fact that Israel has weapons of mass destruction is not widely known in the States, I believe.

As for the Geneva convention, yes, the rules were broken by showing Saddam on TV like that. Not that anyone (but you two, and me, that is), cares.
However, compared to the rest that has been done illegally, I find this a detail. Dunno if that's a good sign...

Originally posted by PinkSparkler321 :
i think that if Gore would have won, we would be in a lot of chaos right now.

As a debater, I would really apprieciate some proof. You have 0 eveidence to base this on.

I'd also like to see the cheating lyer thing, too

Originally posted by PinkSparkler321
it's no use trying to explain to you...

I don't see an explanation. If I pointed to a spoon and said, "I love your spoon!" and you said, "There is no spoon." I'd ask for proof-you wouldn't get off with a "There's no use trying to explain my 'no spoon' theory to you."

yeah, that ones a gimme, but they both are cheating liars. Think of the big commotion over the voting ballots a couple years ago, and think about all that junk that clinton pulled. ~allie

If I remember it correctly, it was BUSH who wanted the recount.

Originally posted by starlet
Oh yeah im sure thats why they did it, if they hadnt shown him at all the public would have just been like 'Yeah right, sure you caught him'
But the geneva convention is there for a reason, to make sure POWs and people like Saddam get treated fairly, they could have shown him on TV...just minus the prodding and poking, that was shown purly to 'show off' and say Ha...look what we can do to this evil man, not so scary now huh saddam?

Rememer during the war (when it was in full swing i mean) american troops caught a load of Iraqi soilders then, and they paraded them on tv...all lined up etc, that broke the conventions rules too...as did about 5 other things that happened (that we know about) but no one ever seems to care...thats why i dont like Bush, hes broken more laws and UN sanctions than any other country in the entire world, people might see them as lesser crimes than Saddams, but it doesnt alter that they are crimes that most other leaders would be in prison for, or at the very least forced to resign!

As a whole, we (Americans) are very hypocritical.

Originally posted by Sheila
And how do we know that America doesn't have WMD (weapons of mass destruction). Why do all the other countries have to be "searched", but how come nobody searches America?


That's one thing (sorta) I was saying before the war. I asked, "Who doesn't have WMD nowadays?" And Bush's daddy gave weapons to Iraq long ago (and he got away with them)! That's why I believed that Bush was just doing this to show up his father or make him proud.

The thing is, it was never really about the weapons. It was never really about helping the people of Iraq. Those were just his excuses to hide his agenda. Oh, and Bush disrespects the people who lost their lives on 9/11 by using that as an excuse for everything he wants. He claimed this thing against Iraq was part of the "war on terrorism", but the real person who started the "war on terrorism" is Bin Laden. If Bush really wanted to cut down on terrorism, why not go after the man responsible for having planes flown into our buildings; which started this fear of terrorists? Next, he claimed that Iraq MAY have had WMD. Who doesn't?! Well, I know there are people who don't, but many do. Assuming someone has weapons isn't enough to put people's lives on the line for! The UN allowed a search and nothing was found. Bush still wouldn't let it go. Then he said weapons (which he never showed us) were found. Where? This is when other countries accused him of being a "bully" (he wanted the rest of the world to join us against small Iraq; come on now!). Later, Syria was accused of holding WMD. This was during the time when North Korea stood up and said, "We have weapons, we're testing them, and if you start bossing us around; WE'LL declare war without waiting around for you to do it." Okay, so we had two countries claming they had no WMD, and one standing up and admitting it; but who did we go after? Iraq! And Syria was next on the list (Bush said Syria had to "cooperate"). Since less and less people were believing the claim that WMD was the reason for the war, Bush sunk even lower. What's the best way to sell something? Mess with someone's emotions. Make them feel sad or feel as if they really need something. So he said the war was to free the people of Iraq. I'm surprised he wasn't holding a starving child as he asked us to support this.

First he claimed the war was to cease terrorism, so people asked about Bin Laden. In response, the war was for taking the weapons of mass destruction. We asked to see these weapons, so the war suddenly became a mission to "free" the people of Iraq. Free them by destroying their home and pulling all the terrorists there? After we got there and had Saddam running, the people wanted us out. There was talk of the government putting someone in charge over there... How is that freedom? I'm not sure if that's still the plan; I heard it months ago, but I'm sure things have changed with the capture of Bin Laden.


Oh, and I forgot. This was a while back, but didn't Bush claim that Saddam MAY have UNKNOWINGLY had some of the terrorists responsible for 9/11 training in his country? And I think the terrorists had training here in the US, too? Can someone clarify this for me? This was said before we knew for sure, so I'm not too sure. =)

I agree with that he didn't directly get Bin Laden and went off with Sadam. Yet what I think is that Sadam had to be dealt with anyway. He has murdered 400,000+ (see the plus sign people?!?!?!) of his own people. Somebody who does that has to be stopped. Why? No one deserves to be scarred of knowing that you might be dead tomorrow or have people come and threaten you death if you thought differently of your own leader. I also believe Iraq needs to take charge once we leave there but they need to know what to do so it doesn't re-become a dictatorship again. about the 9/11 thing "everything he wants" what does he want? I can't understand your point . Also Bin LAden isin't "Terrorism" all together. Sadam is too. And he is going down on terrorism by flushing him and his partners out.

" The UN allowed a search and nothing was found. Bush still wouldn't let it go."
Sadam hid the weapons. You think he would just let people come in on his plans? I don't think so. also if you saw the address to the UN by Colin Powell (about earlier this year) they took satellite photos of hidden weapons in Iraq. Also they would let the UN inspectors search everything and the scientists who had worked for Sadam were threatened death to theor families and themselves if they talked. Now is that ok? Do you really think that people should be scarred of something like that? Bush went there to stop stuff like that and for the protection of other countries. In any situation Sadam [i[had[/i] to be stopped.
"We asked to see these weapons"
Who's we? And if you wanted to see weapons they had pictures just watch the news....
"After we got there and had Saddam running, the people wanted us out"
Are you the spokesperson for Iraq or something? That's totally bias, you know who wanted us out? Sadam supporters and sadam's partners which is not, mind you, everybody in Iraq.....

Originally posted by Cherchezlafemme
"After we got there and had Saddam running, the people wanted us out"
Are you the spokesperson for Iraq or something? That's totally bias, you know who wanted us out? Sadam supporters and sadam's partners which is not, mind you, everybody in Iraq.....
And what's wrong with being the spokesperson for Iraq? No one else is sticking up for them. Have you seen the pictures of sobbing widows and relatives of the Iraqis we're killing? No, they won't show those pictures, the news is so "unbiased" that they can't.

They did want us out. The people of Iraq weren't thinking, "Thank you! Now we can have a brand new government that the US decides!" Most of them were thinking, "Hey, it's great that you got rid of Saddam-can you leave now?"

Originally posted by Cherchezlafemme
I agree with that he didn't directly get Bin Laden and went off with Sadam. Yet what I think is that Sadam had to be dealt with anyway. He has murdered 400,000+ (see the plus sign people?!?!?!) of his own people.
So had Bin Laden. I think it's sad that we instantly forgot who we are supposed to be against. After all, isn't that the reason this entire thing was started? So that we could get the people who got us in 9/11? Or is the American attention span really that small?

We're in Iraq because of the supposed weapons of mass destruction. Now, I'm not saying they exist or not, but Sadam wouldn't let us look so we invaded. He had the opportunity to stop this whole thing, but he didn't. (There's some UN contract or something that makes them obligated to let UN people search or something...) THAT'S why we're in Iraq. Plus, even if we were after Bin Laden, Sadam was a pretty horrible guy too so isn't the only really important thing that we caught him and that he'll be punished?

Originally posted by Cherchezlafemme
I agree with that he didn't directly get Bin Laden and went off with Sadam. Yet what I think is that Sadam had to be dealt with anyway. He has murdered 400,000+ (see the plus sign people?!?!?!) of his own people. Somebody who does that has to be stopped. Why? No one deserves to be scarred of knowing that you might be dead tomorrow or have people come and threaten you death if you thought differently of your own leader. I also believe Iraq needs to take charge once we leave there but they need to know what to do so it doesn't re-become a dictatorship again. about the 9/11 thing "everything he wants" what does he want? I can't understand your point . Also Bin LAden isin't "Terrorism" all together. Sadam is too. And he is going down on terrorism by flushing him and his partners out.

" The UN allowed a search and nothing was found. Bush still wouldn't let it go."
Sadam hid the weapons. You think he would just let people come in on his plans? I don't think so. also if you saw the address to the UN by Colin Powell (about earlier this year) they took satellite photos of hidden weapons in Iraq. Also they would let the UN inspectors search everything and the scientists who had worked for Sadam were threatened death to theor families and themselves if they talked. Now is that ok? Do you really think that people should be scarred of something like that? Bush went there to stop stuff like that and for the protection of other countries. In any situation Sadam [i[had[/i] to be stopped.
"We asked to see these weapons"
Who's we? And if you wanted to see weapons they had pictures just watch the news....
"After we got there and had Saddam running, the people wanted us out"
Are you the spokesperson for Iraq or something? That's totally bias, you know who wanted us out? Sadam supporters and sadam's partners which is not, mind you, everybody in Iraq.....


I agree Saddam had no right to do what he did, but we went to war for the wrong reasons. The US was friends with him before this! We were friends with Stalin! Stalin killed millions of his own people and ruled as a dictator. People seem to think Saddam's the only person to ever act this way. When I say I'm against the war, that doesn't mean I'm for Saddam and I don't care about the people. I'm against the war because it's a lie. Bush likes to bring up 9/11 every chance he can, even if it has nothing to do with terrorism. He makes every little thing sound like it's someway related to 9/11 or terrorism. Part of terrorism is putting fear into people; so he's really not helping by relating every little thing back to it. I would direct you to a website, but I'm sure it's not allowed here due to some language. BTW, please reply outside the quotes. It feels like you're putting words into my mouth. Wait... You did. I don't remember saying Saddam's great or I don't care about the people over there. Did you read everything I said or did you pick through it and twist my words? The thing is, Bush is the one who doesn't care about those people, NOT me. My point was, I feel sorry for the Iraqis, but Bush doesn't. That is NOT why HE went to war, that's just his excuse. I didn't say Bin Laden was our only problem, but he did start this "war on terrorism" with 9/11. He was always a bigger threat than Saddam. Since this war is supposed to be on terrorism, why not start with the man who's directly responsible for having planes flown into our buildings, putting the nation and maybe even others throughout the world in fear, and taking away a lot of our everyday freedoms (like flying a plane, going to work, or better yet--going outside your house)? Why not start with the source? Don't you think the time we spent on Saddam gave Bin Laden a chance to plot or prepare for whatever his next move may be? Bin Laden's still out there, so I'm sure people are still scared of waking up death tomorrow, but it's not over Saddam. About the WMD... We don't know for sure about them, and I'm sure we never will know for sure because of all the lies. What am I supposed to believe from Bush now? He could start telling the truth from here on out, but it's going to be really difficult for many to believe him. I choose not to silently nod at everything I'm told on TV. On my list of things to be afraid of (right under slipping on a bar of soap while taking a shower) is Bin Laden. Bush comes in close! My point in my last post was that MAYBE this war may help the Iraqis, but THAT WAS NOT BUSH'S REASON for this war. When most people say they're against the war, that DOES NOT mean they don't care about the people. It may mean they DON'T SUPPORT HIS LIES! Many news reports and news articles were talking about how they wanted us out. I didn't say they wanted Saddam back, I said they wanted us out, too. They wanted to take things over. I'm sorry I'm not in Iraq to take a survey of all of the citizens, but most of them did want us out. And I know I can't speak for all the innocent people over there who had their families killed BY US in the search for Saddam, but I'm SURE it hurt them. Or would you like me to fly over and ask them personally? Maybe Bush will visit the troops for a while on Christmas and he'll let me go with him. Then we'll fly back to our families for the holiday, leaving the troops wishing they could do the same for at least a few hours.

Originally posted by sebluver
And what's wrong with being the spokesperson for Iraq?

What's wrong is assuming that everyone has the same equal opinion which isin't true at all....

Originally posted by sebluver
And what's wrong with being the spokesperson for Iraq? No one else is sticking up for them. Have you seen the pictures of sobbing widows and relatives of the Iraqis we're killing? No, they won't show those pictures, the news is so "unbiased" that they can't.

True. I remember after 9/11, there were some people in other counties cheering and dancing in the street. Now, I couldn't speak their language or read their signs, but the news said that those people felt as if we deserved it. After that, I heard people saying, "Oh, we should bomb them, too!" Just because the news decided not to show people who felt sorry for us, that doesn't mean they don't exist. The news made it seem like everyone was against us.


They did want us out. The people of Iraq weren't thinking, "Thank you! Now we can have a brand new government that the US decides!" Most of them were thinking, "Hey, it's great that you got rid of Saddam-can you leave now?"

True. They were glad Saddam was out, but they weren't too thrilled about not having a say in who controls them again.


So had Bin Laden. I think it's sad that we instantly forgot who we are supposed to be against. After all, isn't that the reason this entire thing was started? So that we could get the people who got us in 9/11? Or is the American attention span really that small?

Thank you. =)

Originally posted by Cherchezlafemme
What's wrong is assuming that everyone has the same equal opinion which isin't true at all....

Well, that's one of the last things that was claimed they think. Since they STILL don't have much of a say in the government, I can't tell you anything new.

Originally posted by Rosekeet
We're in Iraq because of the supposed weapons of mass destruction. Now, I'm not saying they exist or not, but Sadam wouldn't let us look so we invaded. He had the opportunity to stop this whole thing, but he didn't. (There's some UN contract or something that makes them obligated to let UN people search or something...) THAT'S why we're in Iraq. Plus, even if we were after Bin Laden, Sadam was a pretty horrible guy too so isn't the only really important thing that we caught him and that he'll be punished?


It's CLAIMED we're in Iraq because of the weapons. The constitution doesn't allow the cops say, "Hey, I THINK you have weapons and I don't think you're a good person. I'm just going to walk right into your house now..." Well, that may be true soon, due to this "war on terrorism" thing. I hate war. My cousin's over there. Now, if this was a war against Bin Laden and my cousin was after him (my cousin did volunteer to go to Afghanistan before the war; he came back because he was "bored", lol), I'd feel more confident saying we're fighting the "war on terrorism". While we're dealing with Saddam, what is Bin Laden doing with his time? Let's hope we're lucky and he's just playing with the cards containing his face.

Kinda funny, actually:

We were allies with Stalin, who killed millions of people (I kinda think that we only allied because of hate for the Germans and/or two superpowers on same side). Result: Cold War, Cuban Missle Crisis

We were friends with Saddam pre Gulf War. Result: This

We armed and trained the Afghans! Result: War


Anyone we help we then goto war with! Jeez watch out England. And I would watch my back, France

Originally posted by LesPaul59
As a debater, I would really apprieciate some proof. You have 0 eveidence to base this on.

I'd also like to see the cheating lyer thing, too

that's exactly why I persued the issue, since PinkSparkler321 initially offered no support whatsoever for her statement.

Originally posted by Cherchezlafemme
What's wrong is assuming that everyone has the same equal opinion which isin't true at all....

but Bush seemed to assume that Americans were in favor of the war after hearing that from a few people, so that makes it right, doesn't it?

the only sattelite images of "WMDs" that I recall seeing on the news could have been anything. ever seen satellite images? they usually show some dark areas where buildings and stuff are. you don't know if it's a building where weapons of mass destruction are being produced or if it's someone's house. on the topic of WMDs- didn't Bush start the war without even letting the inspectors finish? they may have found something eventually, or they may not have, but what's troublesome is that Bush jumped the gun and went in anyway- or maybe was that when he changed the reason from WMDs to Iraqi's freedom? or was that oil, or something else? I can't keep it straight anymore...

and about oil- I remember reading that Iraq has oil, which everyone knows. but- Afghanistan has basically no usable natural resources. kind of makes it sound as though oil could have been a factor, doesn't it?

Bush is obviously using the terrorism thing to play on peoples' emotions. he's made me scared- scared that he will be re-elected and have another 4 years to do whatever he wants.

Originally posted by LesPaul59
Kinda funny, actually:

We were allies with Stalin, who killed millions of people (I kinda think that we only allied because of hate for the Germans and/or two superpowers on same side). Result: Cold War, Cuban Missle Crisis

We were friends with Saddam pre Gulf War. Result: This

We armed and trained the Afghans! Result: War


Anyone we help we then goto war with! Jeez watch out England. And I would watch my back, France

There is a lot of truth in that. But, you were allies with is in WWII, and even today, the Dutch haven't forgotten, even to the point where our government secretly backed yours up in this war. (So it's safe to say that our government is just as hypocritical as yours, but that's offtopic). I guess it is different here because your ancestors did not try to install a semi-american government here, they handed our country back to us.

America is not a popular country these days, for various reasons (and Bush is not doing much change this). But I think for any country, if you walk into another country and 'free' them of their leader, even if it is a really bad leader, and then install your own government there, you will be viewed as oppression. People won't say 'thank you'.
The Middle East is very difficult when it comes to these issues. In Iraq, Saddam was hated by most people, but in other Middle East countries, he was seen as some kind of hero, who had a lot of potential for other countries too.
By driving him away from his palace, and then showing, on TV, how humiliated he looks, being prodded by an American medic, Saddam may be converted to some sort of martyr for other places in the Middle East. The result could be more terrorism coming your way :(

Originally posted by Rosekeet
We're in Iraq because of the supposed weapons of mass destruction. Now, I'm not saying they exist or not, but Sadam wouldn't let us look so we invaded. He had the opportunity to stop this whole thing, but he didn't. (There's some UN contract or something that makes them obligated to let UN people search or something...) THAT'S why we're in Iraq. Plus, even if we were after Bin Laden, Sadam was a pretty horrible guy too so isn't the only really important thing that we caught him and that he'll be punished?

Thats just not true, saddam was allowing and being fully cooperative with the insepctors, sure he may still have been hiding something but they should have been given the chance to finish the job....it wasnt saddam who ordered them out of Iraq, it was Bush...he knew if he waited a few more months he wouldnt have been able to use either WMDs or the war on terrorism as the excuse so he had to get on with it...thankfully most people didnt fall for his lies anyway, but sadly some did :(

To those who say 'something had to be done about saddam'...why? and whos next? Saddam is without doubt an evil man and Iraq will (long run, not in the short term) be better off without him...but he posed no real threat to America or anywhere else...but if you say 'Well he killed his own people, we had to get him' then America surely also has to go after all the other countrys in the world that have people like saddam as a leader (and trust me, theres lots of saddams in this world)...what excuse could there be for going after Saddam but not the others?

Ive said it before i'll say it again, i fear Bush/America moreso than any other country, terrorists etc in the world...because he not only has the ability (army, WMDs etc) to do some serious damage, he also has no respect for laws etc and will go after anyone who doest agree with him. If he gets re elected it wont be long before he turns to the next target...and it really could be anyone, Britian included!

I do think something had to be done about Saddam, and about the Taliban, too.
I just don't think it should be done by America, and I think things should have been done about both situations a long time ago, and for better reasons than the poor excuses that were used now...

Originally posted by Marianne
I do think something had to be done about Saddam, and about the Taliban, too.
I just don't think it should be done by America, and I think things should have been done about both situations a long time ago, and for better reasons than the poor excuses that were used now...

If not by the Americans, than by who.

The Iraqi people...you only have to look at history books to know that any country that is 'freed' by another country ends up in a bigger mess than it was before, it'll be decades before Iraq is truly free...if it happens at all.
The only way it ever works is if they do it themselves.

Originally posted by bethygirl
If not by the Americans, than by who.

There are many, many other countries out there. America isn't the only country which can free another one.

Okay...I hate to poke my head into poltics, so I'll just say three little things.

1.) Everybody is entilled to there own opinion, and if I printed out this thread for my history teacher, I'd get an A+ for sure...but anywho, no matter what the US does, whether going into other countries and removing dictators, or simply sending a peace ambassador over to resolve to fighting parties, the world will never be a perfect, peaceful place, since everyone has their own opinion on who the world should work, and that's why there are so many different forms of government in the world, and why there are wars, dictators, and terrorists like Osama.

2.) I feel sorry for Saddams daughters. I can't even imagen how they must be treated or how they must feel seeing their dad on the tv in such a poor state. I know if that was my dad, I don't care what he did, all I know is that he's my daddy, and I don't want to see him like that.

3.) I don't care about politics, all I know is that I just want the soliders to come home. We removed the dictator, and have started to set up a government. Why do the soliders need to be there now? Perhaps a few, but not as many as are in there now; now is not the time for soliders, but for those who can help Iraq create a stable government.

Okay, I'm done with my theories. Now to return to the world of fish stalking....:fish:
....heh....I'll never be a politician or serious for more then 5 seconds...;)

Originally posted by SSPrincess
Okay...I hate to poke my head into poltics, so I'll just say three little things.


2.) I feel sorry for Saddams daughters. I can't even imagen how they must be treated or how they must feel seeing their dad on the tv in such a poor state. I know if that was my dad, I don't care what he did, all I know is that he's my daddy, and I don't want to see him like that.




I'd just like to say his daughters are spoiled brats who wielded their powers in inappropriate, just not illegal, ways. For instance, the one daguther didn't get her way and was going to get somebody to rip the girl's area downstairs off.

I hope that's uh...bleeped enough lol

Originally posted by LesPaul59
Kinda funny, actually:

We were allies with Stalin, who killed millions of people (I kinda think that we only allied because of hate for the Germans and/or two superpowers on same side). Result: Cold War, Cuban Missle Crisis

We were friends with Saddam pre Gulf War. Result: This

We armed and trained the Afghans! Result: War


Anyone we help we then goto war with! Jeez watch out England. And I would watch my back, France



I would say France first (I'm not saying I WANT it to happen, but it could). When that "freedom fry" thing came out, some people thought we should "deal" with France after Iraq. Which is wrong because they didn't do anything to us, they just disagreed (sad, Americans wanted to punish someone for "freedom" of speech).

Originally posted by Dude128
that's exactly why I persued the issue, since PinkSparkler321 initially offered no support whatsoever for her statement.



but Bush seemed to assume that Americans were in favor of the war after hearing that from a few people, so that makes it right, doesn't it?

the only sattelite images of "WMDs" that I recall seeing on the news could have been anything. ever seen satellite images? they usually show some dark areas where buildings and stuff are. you don't know if it's a building where weapons of mass destruction are being produced or if it's someone's house. on the topic of WMDs- didn't Bush start the war without even letting the inspectors finish? they may have found something eventually, or they may not have, but what's troublesome is that Bush jumped the gun and went in anyway- or maybe was that when he changed the reason from WMDs to Iraqi's freedom? or was that oil, or something else? I can't keep it straight anymore...

and about oil- I remember reading that Iraq has oil, which everyone knows. but- Afghanistan has basically no usable natural resources. kind of makes it sound as though oil could have been a factor, doesn't it?

Bush is obviously using the terrorism thing to play on peoples' emotions. he's made me scared- scared that he will be re-elected and have another 4 years to do whatever he wants.

I've considered the oil thing before, but I never put Afghanistan into the same picture... Hmm.... =) Other than that, I agree with everything in your post (you read my mind).

Originally posted by SSPrincess
Okay...I hate to poke my head into poltics, so I'll just say three little things.

1.) Everybody is entilled to there own opinion, and if I printed out this thread for my history teacher, I'd get an A+ for sure...but anywho, no matter what the US does, whether going into other countries and removing dictators, or simply sending a peace ambassador over to resolve to fighting parties, the world will never be a perfect, peaceful place, since everyone has their own opinion on who the world should work, and that's why there are so many different forms of government in the world, and why there are wars, dictators, and terrorists like Osama.

2.) I feel sorry for Saddams daughters. I can't even imagen how they must be treated or how they must feel seeing their dad on the tv in such a poor state. I know if that was my dad, I don't care what he did, all I know is that he's my daddy, and I don't want to see him like that.

3.) I don't care about politics, all I know is that I just want the soliders to come home. We removed the dictator, and have started to set up a government. Why do the soliders need to be there now? Perhaps a few, but not as many as are in there now; now is not the time for soliders, but for those who can help Iraq create a stable government.

Okay, I'm done with my theories. Now to return to the world of fish stalking....:fish:
....heh....I'll never be a politician or serious for more then 5 seconds...;)

Yeah, that is sad to see your father like that... And her brothers! I want the soliders home, too (many of us do), but I doubt it'll happen anytime soon. There's no order in Iraq. There's just as much violence now as when Saddam was in charge! And many terrorists (some who may not have been there before we arrived) are acting. Bush said that getting rid of Saddam would help the "war on terrorism", but this war just made focus outside the US.

Originally posted by LesPaul59
I'd just like to say his daughters are spoiled brats who wielded their powers in inappropriate, just not illegal, ways. For instance, the one daguther didn't get her way and was going to get somebody to rip the girl's area downstairs off.

I hope that's uh...bleeped enough lol

Bush's daughters have legal issues, too; but it's not as bad as that, lol! Where'd you hear that from? I never heard of that.

I just remembered that I saw something last night on the news about a pro-Saddam rally that took place in Iraq yesterday- and they said it basically became a shooting match between the demonstrators and the U.S. soldiers. they weren't clear on how the violence started, but if the U.S. was trying to stop the demonstration (probably), so much for liberation and right to assemble (well, Bush does want a U.S.-like government there, doesn't he?) and all that, huh? and so much for bringing peace in Iraq with Saddam gone.

Originally posted by Dude128
I just remembered that I saw something last night on the news about a pro-Saddam rally that took place in Iraq yesterday- and they said it basically became a shooting match between the demonstrators and the U.S. soldiers. they weren't clear on how the violence started, but if the U.S. was trying to stop it (probably), so much for liberation and right to assemble (well, Bush does want a U.S.-like government there, doesn't he?) and all that, huh? and so much for bringing peace in Iraq with Saddam gone.


How sad :( And the troops are just following orders... Tsk, tsk, tsk. There's a bunch of terrorists there, many of them are loosing their familles, they're still not "free", and I'm sure they felt safer at night with a murderer (Saddam) in charge. This whole "we're at war to help the Iraqis" is getting thrown back into Bush's face. I wonder if he'll try to change the motive again. Those poor people and soliders. At this rate, they'll be there for years!

And most of them are so young :(

Originally posted by SSPrincess
3.) I don't care about politics, all I know is that I just want the soliders to come home. We removed the dictator, and have started to set up a government. Why do the soliders need to be there now? Perhaps a few, but not as many as are in there now; now is not the time for soliders, but for those who can help Iraq create a stable government.

Unfortunately, it is not that simple. The US army marched in there, removed the entire government (so far, so good), then proceeded to dismantle the Iraqi army... (for what reason? they COULD have used the Iraqi army. To send them home without jobs, they only created an army of potential terrorists, WITH guns and WITH combat training...!), THEN they sent the Iraqi police home, so there was nobody left to control what happened, to anyone or anything.
Sooooo then there was a big mess, with people raiding the palaces (so far, so good), the museums (not so good), and the city halls, removing all paperwork.
For the country to get back on it's feet now will take years. The answer at this moment, I think, is NOT to retreat the US soldiers, because they would leave an awful mess behind, with a power vacuum. Unfortunately, since that war began, they will have to 'finish' it, and only leave when there is a certain level of order restored. That seems a loooong way away today.

As for your question, Bethy; I think these things should be left up to the UN. America is part of that, so America would still be involved, but they probably wouldn't make so many enemies... just a thought.

i don't know what to think of all this.. all i know that is was pretty boring to watch tv on those days :P

and i find it pretty funny that most people are immidiately talking about "we have got him!" and "we catched him !" while you people weren't even there when it happened....

Love,
Mirna

Originally posted by SSPrincess

3.) I don't care about politics, all I know is that I just want the soliders to come home. We removed the dictator, and have started to set up a government. Why do the soliders need to be there now? Perhaps a few, but not as many as are in there now; now is not the time for soliders, but for those who can help Iraq create a stable government.



Theres also an awful lot of in fighting going on...as hard as it is to believe Saddam was loved and adored by some people, so all his loyalists are now kicking back, theres also a group...ive forgotten what they are called now...but they basically wanted Saddam gone but also really really objected to America being in there...so they were already fighting but now that Saddam is gone and people know theres no risk from him they reckon that 1000's and 1000's more people will join that 'gang' Then theres lots of little break away groups....so basically if they arent fighting against the US troops they will be fighting amoung each other!

Originally posted by sisqoluv
Bush's daughters have legal issues, too; but it's not as bad as that, lol! Where'd you hear that from? I never heard of that.

That would be the History Channel, but before Bush and the war, so it is quasi unbiased.

Originally posted by Rosey
And most of them are so young :(

I know! And most of the ones who are getting hurt or loosing their lives are young. When they do get back, they won't be the same. Trust me.

I really dislike this whole 'war on terrorism' thing, I still am confused how Saddam has anything to war on terrorism. :confusion: Hm, Weapons of mass destruction, Don't we have those, sure we don't use them but we have them. Last time I checked their has been no proof that Saddam has used them, let alone has them. :rolleyes: I know Saddam HE IS EVIL, but has he used weapons of mass destruction.
I dislike war in general, I find it hypocritical. When people of ANY religion are involved, I find it ironic, but let's not get into that...

Has the news about Libya broken in America yet? When i heard Tony Blurgh was about to make a live speech thing i though 'uh oooh' thought he was going to say they were off after Iran or lybia or somewhere else now...but no, its good news for a change!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3335965.stm

Yes it has :)

... Tony Blurgh ... :lol:

This is really hypocritical thoug:
US President George Bush said: "Colonel Gaddafi's's commitment, once fulfilled, will make our country more safe and our world more peaceful."

"Leaders who abandon the pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them will find an open path to better relations with the US and other nations."
TOO BAD Bush is not one of those leaders himself, huh?! :rolleyes: